Oral Answers to Questions

SCOTLAND

The Secretary of State was asked—

Scotland Act

Anne Moffat: Whether he plans to amend the Scotland Act 1998.

Alistair Darling: There are no plans to revisit the Scotland Act through primary legislation.

Anne Moffat: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and I am glad that there are no immediate plans to look at the Scotland Act. However, will he consider revisiting the Scotland Act when we have the genuine and mature energy review, debate and consultation? If the Scottish Parliament tries to hold up the prospect of having nuclear energy as part of future energy provision, would we perhaps need to examine the Act to take the planning laws away from the Scottish Parliament?

Alistair Darling: No, I do not think that that would be necessary or desirable. I repeat that there are no plans to revisit the Scotland Act through primary legislation. However, I agree strongly with my hon. Friend about the need for a sensible debate on the future generation of electricity not only in Scotland, but throughout the whole United Kingdom. As the Prime Minister has said, that must include a consideration of nuclear energy. I know that many people in the Scottish Parliament have a philosophical objection to that and that others take a more pragmatic view by saying that we must decide how we would deal with nuclear waste. I was interested that the Liberal spokesman, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), has said publicly that he has an open mind on nuclear energy, which, as I understand it, represents something of a departure from Liberal policy.

Alex Salmond: On energy, should we not reopen consideration of the Scotland Act to devolve control of the oil and gas industry to the Scottish Parliament? We know that revenues are reaching a record level of £12 billion, but jobs and exploration are likely to reduce as a result of the Chancellor's clumsy tax hike. We know that the First Minister of Scotland was not consulted—no surprise there—but was the Secretary of State consulted about the tax hike that will affect many Scottish jobs, or is he just a cipher of the Chancellor?

Alistair Darling: As the House knows, I have many discussions with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor about a range of matters. On North sea oil taxation, it is necessary to strike the right balance between oil producers and consumers. We want to promote exploration in the North sea—indeed, there has been considerable exploration over the past few years—but it must be borne in mind that the return on capital was forecast to be 40 per cent. for oil companies in 2005 compared with just 13 per cent. for other non-financial companies. The Government have also said that they are committed to making no further increases in North sea oil taxation in the lifetime of this Parliament and have introduced additional incentives to help exploration. I recall that, in 2002, when we last changed the oil taxation regime for the North sea, the hon. Gentleman predicted the end of exploration as we knew it. Since then, exploration has increased and North sea oil activity has proved to be remarkably robust. He is ever the opportunist and ever ready to make the wrong calls, and it is not just us who believe that, but, increasingly, members of his own party.

James McGovern: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the curious alliance that is demanding that the Scotland Act be revisited: a combination of the nationalists, Greens, Trotskyists and The Sunday Times Scotland? Does he agree that any idea that gathers the support of such an alliance must be mad, bad and, indeed, dangerous?

Alistair Darling: Talking of alliances, I noticed that the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) was on the same platform as the Greens and the Scottish Socialists, who want to shut down the North sea completely—as well as capitalism. He has been building an odd pro-business alliance, and, as I said, he keeps making the wrong calls. I agree with my hon. Friend. I see no need to reopen the Scotland Act and it is not the Government's intention to do so.

Robert Smith: I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
	In answer to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), the Secretary of State said that the high oil price justified the high tax. Will he thus send a signal to the industry that if the oil price falls, the tax that has been justified by the high price will fall in line with that fall in price so that investors are encouraged by knowing that there will be a more stable regime in the long term?

Alistair Darling: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to explain his policy on nuclear energy, as we have heard the policy of his hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso). As for the North sea, I drew the attention of the House to the fact that the return on capital is 40 per cent. in the North sea oil sector and 13 per cent. for other non-financial companies. The Chancellor made it clear last week that, having reached a decision, he does not propose to revisit the matter in this Parliament.

Rosemary McKenna: Without asking my right hon. Friend to speculate on how many women will be selected for safe Tory seats in Scotland, does he agree that one of the great successes of the Scotland Act is the creation of the Scottish Parliament, given the number of women, particularly Labour women, who became MSPs?

Alistair Darling: I agree. It is entirely right and long overdue that the Scottish Parliament should be far more representative of the Scottish population, and I am pleased that our party led the way in making sure that that was the case. The Conservative Front Bench gives a misleading impression of Scottish Tories. While I am delighted to see both the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) and the hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell), there is only one Conservative MP in Scotland, so there is considerable gender imbalance. I see in the press that, no matter what the new Tory leader says about having more women candidates, that policy will not apply in Scotland.

Fuel Prices

Brian H Donohoe: What assessment he has made of the effect of rising fuel prices on businesses in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Alistair Darling: In his pre-Budget report, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor confirmed that he would freeze petrol, diesel and road fuel gases duties this financial year, which will help businesses in Scotland and, of course, elsewhere.

Brian H Donohoe: My right hon. Friend may not be aware of my meeting with three of the five biggest users of gas energy in Scotland, all of whom are experiencing immense difficulties in sustaining their businesses over the winter. Consequently, 2,000 jobs in north Ayrshire could be affected in an already fragile economy. Will he do me the favour of meeting a small delegation from my constituency and north Ayrshire to discuss the matter further?

Alistair Darling: I understand the point made by my hon. Friend. The decision by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to freeze duties on fuels was a helpful one. The supply of energy is a separate issue and my hon. Friend will know that the Department of Trade Industry, which has the lead responsibility, has taken a number of measures to safeguard supplies this winter and in future years. I will have a word with my hon. Friend after Question Time, but it may be better for him to speak directly to the DTI, which has the policy lead in this area.

David Mundell: May I begin in the new way by agreeing with the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Donohoe)? On fuel prices, does the Secretary of State agree with the conclusion of the report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry on gas supplies that the Government are not doing enough for businesses and the vulnerable? Given the severer climate in Scotland, what is he going to do about that?

Alistair Darling: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. On behalf of the Government, may I say that we are sorry that the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) no longer speaks for the Conservative party, but we should all be grateful for her willingness to stand in during her party's hour of need? It was good of her to return today to give the impression that there are two Scottish Conservatives rather than just one.
	I have not had an opportunity to read the report by the Trade and Industry Committee but I am aware of it. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr. Donohoe), the Government are taking action to ensure that we have security of supply not just this winter but in future winters.
	In the spirit of agreement—it is obviously the new mood—may I tell the hon. Gentleman that the Government, too, are concerned about fuel poverty, but we have been concerned about it ever since 1997? That is why we introduced the winter fuel allowance, which was opposed by the Conservative party, and is worth £200 this year and £300 for the over-80s. We have introduced measures to help to insulate homes, and the Scottish Executive have devoted £64 million to help pensioners and other people. If he really believes that something ought to be done about fuel poverty, he and his party must vote to support such measures. In particular, they must vote for the necessary money to support those schemes. In the past seven or eight years, however, they have opposed just about every single measure that we have introduced to tackle fuel poverty.

David Mundell: Given the likely impact on fuel prices, jobs and the wider Scottish economy of the Chancellor's £2 billion smash-and-grab raid on the oil industry, did the Chancellor consult the Secretary of State on his proposals, and if not, why not?

Alistair Darling: The hon. Gentleman will no doubt learn that one of the problems with prepared questions is that he should have listened to what I said a few moments ago. I have many discussions with my right hon. Friend on a range of matters. I repeat the point that I made earlier: it is important that the Government strike the right balance between the interests of encouraging exploration in the North sea, just as we have done over the past few years, and making sure that there is a fair return for the British taxpayer. Looking at the present level of prices and the return of capital, the Chancellor took the decision that it was right to change the level of taxation. I should point out that the level of taxation in the North sea is less than it is in comparable countries such as Norway, another North sea oil producer, and it is competitive against tax rates in other parts of the world. I believe that the measure was absolutely necessary and it was also the right thing to do. Similar predictions about the future of North sea oil were made three years ago and they were wrong. I suspect that the predictions made now are wrong as well.

Michael Connarty: May I turn to the serious question of the damaging effect of gas prices on the business community in Scotland and the rest of the UK? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the interconnector with Europe, which can run at 50 million cu m a day, has a flow-through of only 26 million cu m a day at present, and that the liquefied natural gas terminal at Canvey Island, which can take four tankers a month, is unloading only one a month? Shell has undertaken a big maintenance project on the gas flow from the North sea in November and December, thereby forcing the price up. Is my right hon. Friend aware that what we have here is an invidious monopoly where the suppliers also control transmission, and they are hiking the prices that people have to pay on the spot market because the long-term price was 90p per therm when it should probably be 60p, if the gas were only allowed to flow? We are being manipulated by the owners.

Alistair Darling: I am aware that there have been problems in relation to the supply of gas through the interconnector and, as the Chancellor said in his pre-Budget report last year, the Government are making representations to the European Commission because we believe that, for our market to work properly, it needs to be liberalised. It must be possible for people to buy and sell gas across different countries, and for it to be supplied. As I said earlier, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Minister for Energy are pursuing a variety of measures that, I believe, will increase the supply of oil available to us not just this year, but in the future.

John Thurso: The cost of fuel for motorists in rural Scotland is as much as 10p a litre more than for motorists in urban areas. The long-term answer to that is probably national road user charging, but that is some years away. Will the Secretary of State consider a short-term remedy: the use of the derogation available under EU directives 92/81 and 92/82, which permit lower fuel tax for remote areas? Will he discuss that with the Chancellor? Why should those who have little or no public transport be penalised in this way, when the Government clearly have a solution to the problem?

Alistair Darling: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is so critical of rural transport in Scotland, when after all it is the responsibility of his Liberal Democrat colleague, the Minister for Transport and Telecommunications in Scotland. I am surprised the hon. Gentleman has not made representations to him to try to improve the situation. I am sure that he would be very ready to listen, since they are in the same party.
	There would be some difficulty with the hon. Gentleman's specific proposal. Wherever the line was drawn, anomalies would arise with somebody living just outside such a line having to pay more fuel duty than someone living just over it, so that would not provide the solution that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I appreciate that, in rural communities, especially where people have to travel long distances and there are difficulties with public transport, there are additional pressures, but I do not think that particular measure would help.

Asylum Seekers

David Hamilton: How many asylum seekers in (a) Midlothian and (b) Scotland have been granted refugee status in 2005.

David Cairns: The information is not held in the form requested. However, there were 1,400 grants of asylum in the UK in the first three quarters of 2005.

David Hamilton: Does the Minister share my concern about the view, which is often the result of paranoia, that the United Kingdom has been overrun by hordes of asylum seekers? I cannot think of a single person who is seeking asylum in my constituency, although the relative of an asylum seeker has been to my surgery, and there are very few asylum seekers in Scotland. Is it not time to separate asylum seekers and economic migrants who contribute to the Scottish economy and fill employment gaps—in my area, unemployment is 2.2 per cent.? We must make it clear that we are not being overrun. We should welcome people who have run away from tyrants to come here with open hearts.

David Cairns: I congratulate my hon. Friend on dealing with the issue sensibly and moderately, because the debate is too often characterised by hysteria at the extremes—the hysteria of those who say that we are being swamped by asylum seekers and, at the other end of the spectrum, the hysteria of those who say that any rules on asylum are an affront.
	We must deal with the issues separately. Asylum is about the needs of the individual—if someone has a well-founded fear of persecution, we must welcome them with open arms, and we have a long and proud history of doing so. Immigration is about the economic needs of the host country and it is important to have a managed migration system, which we are working towards. My hon. Friend is right to warn of the dangers of blurring the two issues, because immigration and asylum are separate matters and should be dealt with separately.

Philip Davies: According to the Home Office, in 2004, just one in 15 failed asylum seekers were removed from the United Kingdom. Given his previous answer, what is the Minister doing to ensure that failed asylum seekers are removed from Scotland?

David Cairns: The Home Office is making significant progress on removing failed asylum seekers. It is clear that we have an obligation to welcome those who have suffered abuse or the threat of abuse in their own homes and who qualify for asylum. Those who use the asylum system to bypass the immigration system, however, are engaged in an abuse and are illegal immigrants. If their asylum appeals fail, we ask them to leave the country, and if they do not do so voluntarily—assistance is provided—they are removed. The system is sensible and humane.

John Robertson: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is thanks to the friendly city of Glasgow that we have asylum seekers in Scotland? Glasgow is the only city in Scotland that takes in any asylum seekers and it would be better if other areas did their bit to welcome people from far-off lands, in which case they might understand the problem better.

David Cairns: Once again, I pay tribute to Glasgow city council, which is the only authority in Scotland to take part in the National Asylum Support Service scheme. Although there were some difficulties in the beginning, most people recognise that the scheme has benefited Glasgow. There have been discussions through the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and others about other local authorities joining the scheme, but they have not come to fruition. However, it is open to any local authority to make such arrangements with the Home Office.

Nuclear Plants

Philip Hollobone: What assessment he has made of the level of public support in Scotland for new build nuclear generation plants in Scotland.

Alistair Darling: The energy review will provide the opportunity to assess public support for both nuclear build and other forms of energy generation.

Philip Hollobone: Is it not the case that, unless a decision is made soon, not only will the pool of talent, knowledge and expertise in the Scottish nuclear industry emigrate from Scotland, but Scotland's carbon footprint will be likely to increase?

Alistair Darling: No, that is not the case. British Energy and others involved in the nuclear industry in Scotland fully support the Government's decision to review our energy requirements and the source of generation. I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's forecasts are anything like accurate, and I probably have as good an idea about the situation in the nuclear industry in Scotland as he does.

Angus Robertson: First Minister Jack McConnell does not know whether there should be new nuclear power stations in Scotland. The Liberal Democrat spokesman thinks that it might be a good idea, although his party is opposed. What is the Secretary of State's position? Is he in favour of new nuclear power stations in Scotland? Will he resist the temptation from Labour Back Benchers to repatriate powers over the nuclear power planning process and confirm that it is up to the Scottish Parliament to make decisions about whether there will be nuclear power stations in Scotland?

Alistair Darling: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was in the House at the beginning of Question Time when I made it clear that we do not propose to amend the Scotland Act 1998. He is right to say that the Scottish Executive are responsible for planning matters. If I were him, though, I would be wary of lecturing other parties on their deficiencies, given that his party's position on wind power is remarkable. It is in favour of it in general but against it if it is anywhere near its constituencies.

David Mundell: In light of the interesting question asked by the hon. Member for East Lothian (Anne Moffat), can the Secretary of State explain to the House what the Government would do if a politically motivated Green, Liberal Democrat or, worse still, Scottish National party-influenced Executive blocked the building of a nuclear power station in Scotland?

Alistair Darling: Again, in the spirit of the new consensus, I think that we would both agree that the Scotland Act has to apply regardless of who happens to be elected to the Scottish Parliament. My view is that most sensible political parties, and most people in Scotland, recognise that we need to have a profound debate about the future of energy generation in Scotland, and that to rule out nuclear would be absolutely foolish. This country has very substantial energy needs in future and we must consider what we do with nuclear plants. We should be looking not to the Scotland Act but to the good sense of people in Scotland, who have rejected the nationalists, the Greens and the Trots on every occasion on which they have had the opportunity to vote them down.

Illegal Drugs

Andrew Rosindell: What recent discussions he has had with the Home Secretary on measures to curb the flow of illegal drugs into Scotland.

David Cairns: My right hon. Friend has discussions with the Home Secretary on a range of issues.

Andrew Rosindell: The Minister will be aware of reports that, in Scotland, a line of cocaine is cheaper than cappuccino. There has been a 12 per cent. increase in drug-related deaths in Scotland. When will the Government take action to end this epidemic by securing our ports and airports and ending an appalling trade that ends in the deaths of young people?

David Cairns: I have seen in my own constituency the terrible damage that drug consumption does. It ruins individual lives and wrecks families and communities. That is why it is very important to get all the necessary measures in place to deal with it. Of course, such issues are substantially devolved to the Scottish Parliament. I pay tribute to the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, which has done a magnificent job since its inception, and to the measures that have been put in place through the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. Since that was enacted, more than £5.5 million of assets have been seized from suspected drug dealers. That is hitting drug dealers where it hurts them most—in their pockets. A clearer signal might have been sent from this House if the Conservative party had supported that Act.

People Trafficking

Angus MacNeil: What steps the Government are taking to prevent trafficking of people into and through Scotland.

David Cairns: The Government are committed to tackling people trafficking, and we have made that issue a priority in our presidency of the EU, resulting in the adoption of a UK-drafted action plan on trafficking at a Council of Ministers meeting earlier this month.

Angus MacNeil: Does the Minister accept that the see no evil, hear no evil approach is not a sufficient answer to torture flights and people trafficking on Scottish soil? What is he doing to stop such criminal activity, bearing in mind Lord Woolf's words last week about torture being one of the most evil practices known to man? Will the Minister encourage the police to investigate any suspicious flights and not pass by on the other side on this issue?

David Cairns: We have made the attack on people trafficking one of the priorities of our presidency of the EU. Three important strands need to be put in place to deal with it. First, we need domestic legislation, which we now have in place. Secondly, we need the law enforcement agencies to work in a coherent manner throughout the UK; we will do that through the Serious Organised Crime Agency. Finally, we need co-operation across Europe and beyond because many people who are trafficked come into this country not only from the EU but from Africa.

Jim Sheridan: People trafficking is a big issue not only in Scotland but throughout the United Kingdom. A big problem is the accommodation in which those who are trafficked live. Will my hon. Friend use his influence with local authorities and housing associations to find out whether local authority environmental officers check out people who have been put in local authority housing?

David Cairns: People trafficking is a crime and anyone who puts up those who have been trafficked commits a crime irrespective of the standard of the housing. To that end, we should look to some of the work of Glasgow city council, which is running a pilot programme to examine the impact of people trafficking. That shows the need for a joined-up approach between the various agencies of the council and the law enforcement authorities. People trafficking is modern slavery. As someone once said:
	"If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong."
	We must take every possible measure to stamp out the evil of people trafficking.

Asylum Seekers

Alistair Carmichael: What discussions he has had with Home Office Ministers about the process for removing failed asylum seekers with children from Scotland.

Alistair Darling: I have regular discussions with Home Office Ministers on a range of subjects.

Alistair Carmichael: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a genuine consensus between all parties in Scottish politics that a removals policy for asylum seekers who have children that involves dawn raids is irreconcilable with a policy of treating children according to their best interests? Will he assure hon. Members that he will represent that view in Government and ensure that, throughout the United Kingdom, we have a removals policy that is, at the very least, humane in its treatment of children?

Alistair Darling: As my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality said when he visited Scotland recently, it is unfortunately necessary to remove people who no longer have a right to remain in this country and who have exhausted all the appeal processes. No matter what policy is in place, if someone's application has failed, that must be tackled. I agree that, especially when children are involved, we must be sensitive and the policy must be humane. I also agree that the same policy must apply throughout the United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality made that clear.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

The Minister of State was asked—

Legal Aid

Anne McIntosh: If she will make a statement on the review of legal aid in criminal cases.

Bridget Prentice: An independent review of legal aid procurement by Lord Carter of Coles was launched following the publication of a fairer deal for legal aid on 5 July 2005. Lord Carter will produce a plan to reform the way in which criminal defence and civil legal services are procured with legal aid in early 2006.

Anne McIntosh: As a non-practising Scottish advocate, I follow the question of legal aid for criminal cases closely. Will the Under-Secretary assure hon. Members that, in the rush to save money by slashing the legal aid budget, the legitimate preparatory work that junior counsel in particular perform at the Bar in England will be recognised as well as their travel expenses so that they are not forced into a position whereby they have to withhold their services because their costs are not being met in full?

Bridget Prentice: I do not accept the hon. Lady's description. We have no intention of slashing the legal aid budget. We want to rebalance it. I assure her that Lord Carter of Coles will take into account the position of junior barristers as well as that of everyone else in the legal aid system.

Rob Marris: As a non-practising solicitor in England and Wales, I urge my hon. Friend to examine closely, when the results of the Carter review are produced, the distribution of criminal legal aid between very few highly paid barristers and the junior Bar, which loses out. I urge her to try to get a much better balance for the junior Bar to stop some top counsel making rather a lot of money out of the legal aid system.

Ken Purchase: That is a very good point.

Bridget Prentice: That is, indeed, a very good point.

Ken Purchase: I also write good scripts.

Bridget Prentice: Perhaps my hon. Friend might write one for me.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris) refers to an important part of what Lord Carter will tackle. We are well aware of the amount of the budget that is being spent on high cost criminal cases. We are also aware of the position of those who are relatively new to the Bar and those who have been juniors for a long time. Lord Carter has been made aware of all those issues by the Department and through talking to practitioners.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Minister says that she does not recognise the description given by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), although I thought that it was pretty accurate. Let us see if she recognises this one. At the recent Legal Aid Practitioners Group conference, the director, Richard Miller, said in relation to legal aid:
	"I am frustrated that apparently rational people can believe that a business can survive when its overheads are increasing and its income frozen . . . In no other business or profession would this be tolerated."
	Will the Minister please explain to the House how she intends to save legal aid from collapse?

Bridget Prentice: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman every single detail of that at the Dispatch Box today, but I hope that we shall be able to have that conversation in the course of further debates. I very much intend to save the legal aid budget. However, I do not intend to allow criminal legal aid to grow like Topsy while the civil budget is being squashed. I want to ensure that we rebalance those arrangements. I work closely with Richard Miller and other people from the LAPG, and have long conversations with them about how we can best achieve that.

Vera Baird: First, the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) was misquoting Miller if he was alleging that he was talking about crime. He was talking about civil legal aid, not about crime at all. Quite rightly, my hon. Friend the Minister has pointed out that there is a coincidence of interest between the Government and the LAPG on that issue. Of course, there has been something of a row between the Bar and the Government about who is responsible for the increase in costs. Will the Minister make the good point to the House that the Government have now accepted that there should be legal aid impact assessments on all new laws, so that it will be clear if a new criminal law—we all need new criminal laws; we all want to get more people convicted—is going to have a knock-on effect on legal aid, so that that can be provided for. The situation would then be clear, and there would be no need for any bitterness.

Bridget Prentice: My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. We have indeed introduced the legal aid assessment test, thanks to conversations that we have had with the LAPG. Every Government Department will now have to account for any of the funds that would be needed in legal aid, should they introduce any such legislation. Of course, we in the Department for Constitutional Affairs will be happy to help other Departments to find alternative ways of regulating the system so that people may not necessarily have to go through the court system.

Barristers (Industrial Action)

James Duddridge: What contingency plans she put in place in response to the industrial action by barristers in criminal practice.

Andrew Rosindell: If she will make a statement on the industrial action by barristers.

Bridget Prentice: We said that we would maintain the judicial system regardless of any action that barristers might take. We have done that. The action was limited, and was managed locally by the courts, the Legal Services Commission and the Crown Prosecution Service using a range of effective contingency plans.

James Duddridge: I thank the Minister for her response. What contingency plans does she have in place in case there are problems and disruption when Lord Carter eventually produces his report? What will happen if barristers withdraw their labour after the Carter report?

Bridget Prentice: I do not want to prejudge either the Carter report or what the barristers will do as a result of it. Since the barristers took strike action, they have co-operated very positively with Lord Carter, and I do not foresee that we shall have to put any contingency plans in place post-Carter. However, if we have to, we will.

Andrew Rosindell: Does the Minister agree that cuts in legal aid pay will have a serious effect on the recruitment of barristers from lower income backgrounds? I thought that that was a recruitment policy that the Government encouraged.

Bridget Prentice: In answer to the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question, he is absolutely right. We do want to encourage people from a variety of backgrounds into the legal profession, both as barristers and solicitors. As I said in answer to an earlier question, Lord Carter is looking at the situation as a whole. He is well aware of where the strains are within the legal aid budget, and I hope that he will suggest some positive reforms that will ensure that people not only from lower income backgrounds but from a diverse variety of backgrounds are able to join the profession.

Keith Vaz: Does not the Minister share my disappointment that members of the junior Bar took this industrial action? Will she assure the House that the Government are continuing to hold a dialogue with them? Will she explain to the barristers concerned that we have a legal aid budget of £2.1 billion, which is up from £1.5 billion in 1997? The Government are seeking not to cut that budget but to refocus it on the areas that clearly need funding, such as the community legal service and the large parts of the country in which one simply cannot find a solicitor prepared to give legal advice. That is why there must be a reshaping of our priorities.

Bridget Prentice: I know full well the amount of work that my hon. Friend did to establish facilities such as the community legal service, and I hope that the House is appreciative of that. I do not accept, however, that there are large swathes of the country where people cannot get legal advice. They can get legal advice, and there are a variety of ways in which we can provide it, whether face-to-face directly with a solicitor, by telephone or on the internet. It is also right, however, that we want to rebalance the increased budget that this Labour Government have put into legal aid—up from £1.5 billion to £2.1 billion, which we should not forget—so that civil legal aid gets its fair share of the pot.

Barbara Keeley: On the subject of industrial action, will the Minister tell us what might be the impact of the planned industrial action by magistrates court staff?

Bridget Prentice: We are disappointed with the ballot result in the magistrates courts. There is still time for industrial action to be averted, and it is regrettable and unfortunate that we have been unable to reach agreement on a settlement with the unions. I hope that further negotiations and discussions can take place between now and when they wish to consider action.

Jeremy Wright: The Minister has expressed her concern for the junior Bar, which I share. Does she agree that one of the reasons for the industrial action is that members of the junior Bar in particular have been asked to wait and wait for an indication of what their financial future will be? Had the Government also waited for the Carter review before imposing cuts on fees paid to the junior Bar, that industrial action might have been averted.

Bridget Prentice: The Government, as the caretaker of the taxpayer's money, must behave in a responsible fashion. Legal aid was £130 million over budget, so we had to take some action to ensure that we brought it back into line. It is responsible and proper for the Government to behave in that way. We look forward to the outcome of Lord Carter's review early in the new year, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the junior Bar will find it a positive way forward.

David Taylor: Stephen Hockman QC, the new chair of the Bar, has stated his view that Carter will recommend fee levels that are likely to be accepted as appropriate. Of the 4,000 criminal barristers in England and Wales, however, increasing numbers are refusing to take on new defence cases, and in some cases declining to take late appointments when other barristers were double-booked in relation to a prosecution. As a result, prosecutions in the courts have been lost. Does the Minister think that that is likely to be an increasing trend before Carter reports?

Bridget Prentice: No, I do not think that that will be an increasing trend before Lord Carter reports. The picture that my hon. Friend has painted might have taken place during the strike action, although no case was lost in court. I do not therefore believe that the scenario that he describes is likely to recur. Lord Carter is well aware of the views of everyone in the legal profession, however, and has had detailed conversations on such matters. I am sure that he will bring forward a review that will allow us to have a legal aid system that is sustainable and appropriate for the 21st century.

Jonathan Djanogly: The Minister fails to face up to the fact that legal aid in this country is in crisis. With barristers striking, at least 25 per cent. of criminal law firms having closed down over the past four years, legal aid rates frozen for eight years and more than 50 per cent. of Crown court legal aid now being spent on just 1 per cent. of the cases, how much further can the Government squeeze the pips of legal aid before it collapses?

Bridget Prentice: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not think about the answers to some of the earlier questions before asking his own question. I have already established that the barristers' strike is over, and that they are co-operating with Lord Carter. It is precisely because 50 per cent. of the budget is being spent on 1 per cent. of cases that we asked Lord Carter to conduct a review and to see how the position could be improved. We have already provided opportunities to manage cases before they go to court, and we are considering ways in which the junior Bar can be helped and supported. A whole range of things are happening. If the hon. Gentleman is to speak from the Front Bench, he really ought to do his homework first.

House of Lords

Philip Hollobone: What plans she has to change the composition and powers of the House of Lords.

Harriet Harman: Our plans include clarifying the powers of the House of Lords to entrench the primacy of this House, and giving this House a free vote on the composition of the House of Lords.

Philip Hollobone: Given the speed with which the Government are advancing reform of the House of Lords, when the Prime Minister eventually steps down, is he likely to be elevated to the upper House, or will he have to seek election to it?

Harriet Harman: I think that we are proceeding at an appropriate pace. As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are committed to establishing a Joint Committee of the two Houses to consider and codify the powers of the House of Lords, so that when we vote in this House on the composition of the House of Lords we shall be in no doubt about what its powers are. Now that the Conservatives have sorted out their leadership issues, I trust that we shall be able to proceed with the establishment of the Joint Committee as soon as possible.

Michael Connarty: Does my right hon. and learned Friend share, or at least empathise with, my embarrassment over what happened last week when the European Scrutiny Committee visited the Turkish Parliament? When we spoke of people's concern about the fact that the country was run by a religious party, it was pointed out that we have a second Chamber containing 13 representatives of a particular religion. Did they get there by right? According to those parliamentarians, if any member of their Parliament had been found to have given £200,000 to a political party, he would be in jail and not in a legislature.

Harriet Harman: Let me respond to my hon. Friend's first point by saying that he will have a chance, as we all will on a free vote, to vote on the composition of the House of Lords. What is important is ensuring that the House is given the choice that it wants, rather than the Government narrowing down the possibilities. In that way the House can play a part in deciding the choice on which it is ultimately able to vote.
	I shall pass swiftly over my hon. Friend's second point.

Douglas Hogg: I welcome the news that the House is to be given a free vote on the composition of the second Chamber. Many of us believe that it should be either wholly or largely elected. However, may I ask the Minister to be very careful when talking about the primacy of this House? What she is actually talking about is the primacy of the Whips Offices in all parties. That is very different from the primacy of an elected Chamber.

Harriet Harman: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, who is a former Whip, says that that sounds perfectly reasonable to her, but I believe that plenty of Members on both sides of the House consider that the Whips do not have absolute primacy—although of course they have powers to persuade and encourage.
	When Members of this House vote on the composition of the House of Lords, the vote will be not only free but unwhipped. All Ministers will have a free vote, and members of all parties will have a free vote. What is more, we want to ensure that the House has decided on what choice is before it, so that no Members can feel that they were not given the right choice on which to exercise their votes.

David Heath: If the right hon. and learned Lady thinks that we are moving at an appropriate pace, I should hate to see us moving slowly. This is the most urgent issue within the urgent process of democratic renewal that the House needs to undertake. We have waited since last summer for the Joint Committee to be established, and there is still no sign of it. We cannot have the free vote to which the right hon. and learned Lady referred until the Joint Committee has done its work. Has she had any conversations with the Leader of the House as to whether, when we do come to take a decision on the matter, we can do so by a process of exhaustive amendment similar to the process by which you, Mr. Speaker, were elected, so that we have a genuine outcome and not the Whip-arranged score draw that we had last time?

Harriet Harman: On the speed with which we are proceeding on constitutional and democratic reform, I remind the hon. Gentleman that we have devolved power to Scotland, Wales and London, we have new electoral systems for Scotland, Wales, London and the European elections, we have introduced the Human Rights Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and we have already undertaken substantial reform of the House of Lords. I would have liked us to go faster in establishing the Joint Committee of the Lords and the Commons, but it requires the agreement of all parties. We are seeking to reach that agreement and to set up that Joint Committee of all parties. We do not want to proceed without the help of a Joint Committee but, if it cannot be set up, we will move on. That will, however, be less satisfactory.
	I will be having discussions with hon. Members about the process by which we decide the options on which to have the free vote. I do not think that any of us wants to go through the processes that we went through last time, which people felt were unsatisfactory. We must work out how to get the appropriate consensus of this House reflected in a vote.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Patrick Cormack: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that I am tied by the rules of the House, which say that I must go on to another matter.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

The Leader of the House was asked—

Select Committees

Nicholas Winterton: If he will bring forward proposals to appoint a representative of the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons to the Liaison Committee.

Nigel Griffiths: The House decided on 13 July that the Liaison Committee should comprise members who chair the Select Committees established in our permanent Standing Orders. We do not propose to revisit that matter so soon after that decision was taken.

Nicholas Winterton: The Modernisation Committee of the House of Commons has existed and operated in this House for eight years. Although it is appointed only until the end of the present Parliament, it has become a permanent fixture of the House, whether we like it or not. Is not it wrong that a major Select Committee that can influence the way in which the House operates should not have a representative on the Liaison Committee, which is the Committee of all the Chairmen of the Select Committees of this House? Will the Minister review the issue as a matter of urgency and fairness?

Nigel Griffiths: The Modernisation Committee may indeed be fairly new in terms of the history of this House and it may indeed, to use the hon. Member's words, be a permanent fixture, but it is not in our permanent Standing Orders. I pay tribute to the valuable role that the Modernisation Committee plays in this place, but there are other Committees whose Chairs are not represented either. It is, of course, open to any Member or any Committee of this House to make direct representations to the Liaison Committee, and I urge the hon. Member to do that.

Pete Wishart: With all due respect to the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), surely, if there is a place available on the Liaison Committee, it has to go to a representative of the minority parties. Currently, we are completely excluded from that important Committee, and denied the opportunity to question the Prime Minister on key issues of the day. Does the Minister agree that the Committee does not need any more members from the three main parties and that that exclusion must be addressed?

Nigel Griffiths: I have to say to the hon. Member that there is minority party representation, but it is not his party—it is the Liberal Democrats. It is up to him and his colleagues to sort the matter out with them. I have to stress that the deliberations of the Liaison Committee are available to all and representations are taken, as I have said, from Members. I attribute the same importance to every Member of the House, so if the hon. Member wishes to make representations to the Liaison Committee, he should do so.

Patrick Cormack: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some of us think that modernisation should come to an end fairly soon? Would it not be interesting to allow the Chairman of the Modernisation Committee to sit on the Liaison Committee? Then we could hear the Leader of the House question the Prime Minister in public.

Nigel Griffiths: The issue of whether the Chair of the Modernisation Committee should be on the Liaison Committee has already been covered when I referred to the Committees established under the permanent Standing Orders of the House. It is also important to note that, with the Committee already comprising 30 members and the Chair, there is plenty of scope and plenty of representation across the House. There is no reason why any question that an hon. Member feels is appropriate should fail to be put to the Prime Minister or to anyone else.

Modernisation Committee

Norman Baker: If he will press the Modernisation Committee of the House of Commons to recommend a procedure for moving amendments to statutory instruments.

Nigel Griffiths: No. Delegated legislation covers subsidiary areas of law making that Parliament has already decided should, subject to certain safeguards, be for Ministers to deal with. Those safeguards are laid down in the parent Act and there are opportunities under the negative or affirmative procedure for the House to reject any instrument.

Norman Baker: The Minister is a fair man and he will recognise that on some occasions in Committees when statutory instruments are presented, it becomes apparent that a minor change would be beneficial. Sometimes all parties agree on that, but the Government do not want to take the SI back for further consideration, so it gets pushed through in its unamended and deformed state. Would it not be far better if Members could amend SIs? If that were allowed to happen, the legislation would be better and it would help the Government.

Nigel Griffiths: A number of organisations, including the Procedure Committee, have looked into this matter. The Hansard Society examined it under Lord Rippon and concluded:
	"We see the greatest difficulty in empowering the House or its committees to amend the text of instruments . . . and all the advantages of greater flexibility of delegated legislation would be lost."
	It is that flexibility that we do not wish to lose and neither do we wish the statutory instrument procedure to become yet another series of whipped votes on issues, which I fear it would undoubtedly become.

Theresa May: I am interested to hear the Minister's comment that statutory instrument procedure should not become a matter of whipped votes, which, of course, they are when a vote is taken in the Committee considering a particular instrument. Given the number of legislative measures that are enacted not through a Bill but through secondary legislation and given that statutory instruments are debated for a maximum of only one and a half hours under the negative procedure, does not the Minister believe that the time has come for better scrutiny of the statutory instruments and regulations that the Government use as a secondary means of introducing legislation?

Nigel Griffiths: First, I welcome the right hon. Lady to her post as shadow Leader of the House. Having looked into the problem—the Procedure Committee looked into it more recently than the Hansard Society, and it is kept under review by Committees of the House—I do not believe that there is a convincing case for opening up statutory instruments to a different set of procedures from the existing ones that have been used for some time. I have to disappoint the right hon. Lady by saying that I do not accept her point of view on this matter.

David Heath: My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is obviously right, but is there not an even more worrying development? Over recent months, Northern Ireland legislation has been introduced by statutory instruments. It is, in effect, primary legislation, but because of the rules of the House, it is unamendable. Will the Minister at least consider the matter further in the context of dealing adequately with Northern Ireland legislation?

Nigel Griffiths: The important point about Northern Ireland legislation is that, as the peace process moves forward, we have to re-establish the Northern Ireland Assembly as quickly as possible. It is important to move in that direction rather than consider temporary measures to cope with what we all hope will be a temporary issue.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

The hon. Member for North Devon, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

Cleaners (Pay Dispute)

Julie Morgan: What plans the Commission has to help resolve the dispute with the House's contract cleaners.

Nick Harvey: I understand that the employing company has made an offer to the union representing its work force, about which the union is consulting its membership. To provide further information at this delicate stage in the negotiations would not be helpful to either side.

Julie Morgan: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's response and I am glad that some progress has been made, but does he not think that this situation will continue as a running sore until there is a satisfactory resolution, and that it may be necessary for the House of Commons Commission to involve itself and to renegotiate the contract?

Nick Harvey: The authorities of the House have been actively involved in discussions with the employer company and I am very hopeful that a resolution can now be found. However, given that the proposal is being discussed and negotiated at this very moment, there is a limit to what I can say at this stage if I am to avoid being unhelpful.

David Taylor: Can the hon. Gentleman tell the House, despite the acknowledged sensitivity of the negotiations, whether any attempt will be made to bridge the gap between this Parliament and other European Parliaments, in that no other European Parliament allows its cleaners to be paid so little and none allows them to be employed without sick pay or pension provision? Are those two issues also under discussion?

Nick Harvey: I am not party to the negotiations but I believe that the issues to which the hon. Gentleman refers are indeed under discussion. On comparisons, he will have to accept that employees in central London are employed in a local market here, and that comparisons with other markets in other countries are not really valid for the purposes of concluding a contract negotiation.

Jim Sheridan: I am absolutely delighted that progress is allegedly being made. That said, there are stories circulating that the trade union involved is flexing its muscles, but nothing could be further from the truth; rather, it is defending basic, principled rights and representing people who are among the most vulnerable in our society. That is what trade unionism is about, not flexing muscles.

Nick Harvey: I have not heard such suggestions and I am sure that the trade union involved is doing its best to represent its members. As I said, I am hopeful that a conclusion can be arrived at before long.

Points of Order

Anne McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I briefly gave notice yesterday of this point of order, which relates to the answer given to a question from me by the Minister for Policing, Security and Community Safety, the right hon. Member for Salford (Hazel Blears). It appeared in Hansard on 29 November, and on 8 December, she wrote to me to point out that it was inaccurate—through, I am sure, no fault of hers—in two substantive respects. She then wrote to me to correct the two inaccuracies and has confirmed that a copy of the letter has been placed in the Library. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the inaccurate answer remains on the record in Hansard. May I ask you to use your good offices to ensure that the record is reprinted with the full text of the amended written answer, including the corrections to those two inaccuracies?

Mr. Speaker: I am pleased that the Minister has clarified and rectified the situation. If the hon. Lady is very keen to ensure that the content of the reply that she received is on the record, she can table an identical question and the answer to it will tie in with that reply. That is the way to do it.

Andrew Selous: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can advise Ministers on the correct procedure when answers given in this House are not correct. If I may, I draw your attention to the differing practices of the Treasury and the Foreign Office in this regard. When I asked a question during Treasury questions on 10 November, the answer given was incorrect and a letter was then placed in the Library of the House. However, I noted from yesterday's Order Paper that when the same thing happens in the Foreign Office, it is good enough to include a written ministerial statement on the Order Paper. Given these differing practices, can you advise Ministers on the manner in which you expect inaccurate answers to be corrected?

Mr. Speaker: May I say to the hon. Gentleman that that would be a matter for consideration by a Committee of the House? It is not one for me to intervene in.

Angus MacNeil: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Today, I have read on a BBC website that a £100-million contract for new coastguard helicopters has been awarded. One of the coastguard bases that will benefit is at Stornoway, in my constituency. I raised this matter in a point of order last Thursday, when I asked whether the relevant Minister would come to the House and make a statement about the contract. Will hon. Members have an opportunity to question that Minister about the matter?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman can put down questions for the appropriate Question Time. He can also submit written parliamentary questions to find the information that he seeks.

Road Traffic Signs (Enforcement Cameras)

Nick Palmer: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require all road traffic signs which show the routes where enforcement cameras are from time to time in use to include information on the speed limit in force on such routes.
	The Bill is very simple, and I do not expect to detain the House for my full 10 minutes. My proposal would mean that signs indicating the location of a speed camera would also include information about the speed limit that drivers are expected to observe. So, a sign might say, "Speed camera 30", when 30 mph is the limit at that spot or, "Speed camera 40", when the limit is 40 mph.
	In many places—and there are some in my constituency—drivers joining a larger road from a side road will pass a speed camera before being informed about the relevant speed limit. I am not at all opposed to the use of speed cameras to enforce reasonable speed limits, and I speak as one who has been fined. Cameras have the effect of restraining those of us who might be tempted to go beyond the appropriate limit, and certainly I am always especially careful when I see a camera.
	I think that speed cameras work, but surely it is in the interests of law enforcement and common sense to require camera signs to inform drivers about what they are expected to do. That would be in drivers' interests, too: on seeing a camera sign, all they would have to do is glance down at their speedometers to make sure that they were within the limit displayed on the sign, and then proceed.
	Really, that is all that there is to the Bill. It has widespread, all-party support, for which I am very grateful. Its implementation costs would be negligible, as existing signs would merely have to be amended. The hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) has asked me to stress his view that there are too many signs already, and that he would like efforts to be made to reduce other signage if the Bill were passed. I accept that that is a reasonable point.
	In this House, the tradition is that Bills that merely offer practical improvements are given a fair wind. I hope that hon. Members present today will give it that fair wind, and that it meets the same treatment if approval is given for its Second Reading on 14 July.

Rob Marris: Full speed ahead!

Nick Palmer: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend for his encouragement, and I hope that the House will allow me to bring in the Bill.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Andrew Tyrie, David Lepper, Mr. Fabian Hamilton, Andrew George, Dr. Howard Stoate, Mr. Rob Wilson, Mr. Andy Reed and Mr. Paul Truswell.

Road Traffic Signs (Enforcement Cameras)

Dr. Palmer accordingly presented a Bill to require all road traffic signs which show the routes where enforcement cameras are from time to time in use to include information on the speed limit in force on such routes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 July, and to be printed [Bill 102].

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Criminal Defence Service Bill [Lords]

[Relevant document: The Fifth Report from the Constitutional Affairs Committee, Session 2003–04, HC 746, on the Draft Criminal Defence Service Bill.]
	Order for Second Reading read.

Bridget Prentice: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	The Bill seeks to establish a legal aid system that balances fairness with administrative simplicity and that is based on affordability yet is sensitive to an applicant's individual circumstances. In order to achieve that, we will transfer the power to grant legal aid representation from the courts to the Legal Services Commission, and we will introduce a test of financial eligibility.
	The Bill and the scheme that it seeks to deliver are a straightforward evolution of the founding principles of legal aid as they were first expressed by the Rushcliffe report in 1945 and by the subsequent Legal Aid and Advice Act 1949—introduced by a Labour Government. From its earliest design, legal aid was intended to be a wider expression of the beliefs that lay at the heart of the welfare state. A "judicare system" was to be established whereby the services of lawyers could be made available to the poor as well as the rich. The Bill reasserts those founding principles, as well as creating a robust and sustainable legal aid system that is not only capable of responding to the demands of the modern justice system, but of enhancing and supporting it. It also builds on an existing raft of reforms that have already had a significant impact in the area. The Access to Justice Act 1999 modernised the legal aid system and, since then, we have continued to improve and refine the performance of legal aid.
	But costs have continued to rise: as indeed they have throughout the history of legal aid. In 2004–05, spending on legal aid as a whole exceeded £2 billion, a rise of £513 million since 1997–98. To put it simply, year on year, the cost of legal aid has risen, on average, at almost twice the rate of inflation. That trend cannot be allowed to continue.
	Since 1997, there has been a large growth in criminal legal aid where expenditure has risen by £458 million. There is little doubt that a good proportion of that spending has proved invaluable in protecting the rights of the vulnerable, ensuring access to justice and maintaining the efficiency of the criminal justice system, but the Government also have a wider responsibility to protect the interests of the poor, the socially excluded and, ultimately, the law-abiding members of society. Legal aid resources are finite and only one part of our social agenda, which includes health and education.

David Davies: I have listened with great interest to what the Minister has said, but is not she saying—in a roundabout way—that the Government got it all wrong a few years ago and that they are now making a gigantic U-turn?

Bridget Prentice: The system that was in force before we came into government was decrepit, convoluted, complex and overly bureaucratic. We introduced a system that swept all that away, but we were not aware how many people would take advantage of the new system. That is why we need to look again at the issue. We have an obligation to live within our means and to ensure that the available funds are targeted in the fairest and most strategically beneficial way.
	We must make our money work for us and the Bill seeks to do just that by rebalancing and refocusing legal aid expenditure to ensure that we not only protect the rights of those who find themselves prosecuted under the criminal law, but we fund law-abiding citizens who may find that they need to protect or enforce a civil right.
	Despite the refinements to the proposed scheme that the Bill empowers, the core principles of the policy, and the Bill itself, remain largely unaltered from the draft that the House saw originally.

David Burrowes: The Government refer to the fact that they are focusing funds. Although the Bill seeks to make further savings of £35 million in respect of the lower courts, has not the Legal Services Commission already accepted that those costs are under control? Indeed, the Department for Constitutional Affairs has predicted that they are on the decrease. One respects the fact that legal aid costs in general have increased, but the budgets of lower courts are under control, so should not the true target for cost-cutting be high-cost cases?

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman may have been in the Chamber during Constitutional Affairs questions, in which case he would have heard me say that we are targeting high-cost cases. The Bill tries to ensure that we have a much fairer system in both the lower and higher courts. The Bill will also cover the Crown Court.
	There are two key enabling powers: first, the power to grant representation is to be transferred from the courts to the Legal Services Commission and, secondly, a test of financial eligibility is to be reintroduced. Clauses 1 and 2 confer those powers by amending schedule 3 to the Access to Justice Act 1999. Clause 3 creates a power to require defendants to make contributions towards the cost of their legal aid, which will be a central component of the Crown court scheme. Clause 4 makes consequential amendments to other legislation.
	The scheme to be developed through those powers will consist of three distinct elements: transfer of the power to grant; means-testing in the magistrates court; and means-testing in the Crown court.

Philip Hollobone: Will the Minister explain to the House why she had to sign a certificate to ensure that the legislation complies with the European convention on human rights?

Bridget Prentice: We all sign certificates to ensure that we comply with the convention. It is a good thing to do and that is why we do it. Every Bill that comes before the House has to have such a certificate. That is part of the law that we introduced and I am puzzled about why the hon. Gentleman is asking that question. Perhaps he would like to explain.

Philip Hollobone: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene again.
	I understand from the helpful explanatory notes that there are particular difficulties with clauses 2 and 3, such that the Minister had to sign a certificate under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998. I am not aware that that has been necessary with other recent legislation.

Bridget Prentice: I can only reiterate that it is part of the law of our country that we comply with the Human Rights Act, and we are ensuring that the Bill does so. I am happy to have signed up to the Act according to those provisions—[Interruption.] I am informed that all Ministers taking Bills through the House sign according to the same provisions in the Act. There is nothing unusual about the Bill in that respect.
	I want to explain some of the things that the Bill will not do. I must emphasise that it will not affect the existing interests of justice test, which will remain an important feature of the legal aid system and all applicants will need to satisfy it. The test allows for several factors to be taken into account; for instance, whether the applicant is likely to lose his liberty when determining if it is in the interests of justice for legal aid to be granted.
	It is an inescapable fact, however, that, as matters stand, every Member of the House would qualify for legal aid provided they passed the interests of justice test. I doubt that I need to remind Members about the unfortunate stream of well-publicised cases in which apparently wealthy individuals are able to claim legal aid under the current scheme. Few would disagree that such a perverse system needs to be tackled and that is precisely what the Bill sets out to do.

David Davies: Surely, we made those points four or five years ago, when the hon. Lady's Administration changed the rules and brought an end to means-testing.

Bridget Prentice: I am not aware that the hon. Gentleman was making any of those points four or five years ago, but if some of his colleagues were doing so, I was not aware of it. When the scheme was introduced four or five years ago, it was seen to be much simpler and more straightforward than what had gone before. We recognise that we made it much easier for people to obtain legal aid when they would not otherwise have chosen to do so. We are trying to get the balance right.
	Under the Bill, the grant of legal aid will cease to be a largely judicial function administered by court staff and, instead, become an administrative function with judicial oversight. Responsibility for the grant will be given tothe Legal Services Commission. However, the Government's intention is that court staff will remain responsible for the scheme's day-to-day operation. That arrangement will be regulated by a service level agreement between Her Majesty's Courts Service and the Legal Services Commission. A right of appeal to the court on the interests of justice test will still remain.

Jeremy Wright: The Minister has made it perfectly clear that the Government's intention is to reduce the demands on the criminal legal aid budget, but I am sure that she will accept that delay in the criminal justice system is a problem. What measures will the Government take to ensure that means-testing, and all that goes with it, does not delay the bringing to court of criminal cases?

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, which I shall come to later in my speech if he is prepared to bear with me.
	The transfer of grant will allow the Legal Services Commission to exercise greater control over legal aid expenditure, as well as ensuring consistency and certainty for applicants. The proposed means test in the magistrates court will be quick and simple to administer. A simple initial filter that consists of upper and lower thresholds will be applied. Applicants whose income falls below the lower threshold will automatically qualify for legal aid, while those who exceed the upper threshold will not be eligible.
	To enhance the scheme's sensitivity, however, those thresholds will not be set at a single level; they will be weighted to take account of household composition. For instance, for a childless couple, the upper threshold would be set at £34,000 and the lower one at £19,000. However, a couple with a three-year-old child would have an upper threshold of £40,120 and a lower threshold of £22,420.
	For applicants whose income falls between the two thresholds, a more detailed assessment would be carried out to determine disposable income by incorporating a system of allowances covering actual housing, child care and maintenance costs. Applicants whose disposable income, when so calculated, is below a set level would be eligible for legal aid. At the moment, we believe that the disposable income threshold should be in the region of £3,156—close to that used in the civil legal aid scheme.
	To place that in context, under that two-tier model for the means test, a couple with a three-year-old child and a joint gross income of £24,000 would probably be granted legal aid after completion of the detailed assessment, but a childless couple, with a similar income and therefore a far higher disposable income, would be unlikely to pass the detailed assessment and therefore would not receive legal aid.
	The means test will include assets held by the applicant's partner. Since the test makes allowance for the increased cost of a two-person household, it is fair to recognise not only the full cost, but the full income of the household. However, we acknowledge the concerns of those who argue that unfairness may arise in cases where the partner has a clear contrary interest—for example, in a domestic violence case. For that reason, we will build safeguards into the new scheme to deal with such situations. Once legal aid has been granted, it will cover the entire cost of the defence.
	We are aware that such a system can never take account of all possibilities. It has long been a central objective of the scheme that it is sensitive to individual circumstances and considers not only an individual's income, but his capacity to pay. To achieve that, tightly drafted regulations will detail when an applicant can request that special consideration be given to his circumstances. For example, account would be taken of the circumstances of applicants who had especially high outgoings and were genuinely unable to pay for their defence, perhaps because they cared for a disabled relative.
	It is also a prime objective that the scheme causes minimal disruption to the justice system. Information on a defendant's means will be collected at the earliest opportunity after entry into the criminal justice system. In some cases, that will be as soon as an applicant is charged with a criminal offence.

David Burrowes: Will the Minister give way?

Bridget Prentice: I am just about to respond to the point made by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright).
	In a second measure to reduce delay, defendants will be able to apply for legal aid under an extended advice and assistance scheme running up to, and including, the first hearing, when a means-tested representation order will come into force. Qualification for the scheme will be determined on the interests of justice alone. That will ensure that the new system does not introduce any delay and that full advantage is taken of the natural pauses that already exist in the criminal justice process. For example, if a defendant who is charged with a relatively serious criminal offence for which he faces imprisonment is held on remand, he will appear in court immediately for a bail hearing. Should the defendant intend to plead not guilty, his trial will be adjourned to allow the defence and prosecution to prepare fully for the trial. Legal aid could then be sought in the period before the full trial started.

David Burrowes: Given that it is likely that the Bill will increase the burden on magistrates courts' staff, does it not highlight the present damaging pay dispute involving such staff? Magistrates courts have great difficulty recruiting and retaining high-quality staff, which has a profound effect on the quality of justice. Such staff will be considering the interests of justice test and implementing the Bill. Unless the Government try to resolve the problem of the pay dispute, there is a worry that there will be a profound effect on local justice.

Bridget Prentice: I hope that the pay dispute does not result in industrial action and that there will be an opportunity before the time at which that action is supposed to take place for all parties to come together to find a constructive solution. I am well aware of the situation that magistrates courts' staff face.
	Magistrates courts' staff do the administration for the scheme, and their jobs will be enhanced by giving them responsibility. They perform their roles under judicial supervision at the moment. It is important for us to say to them, "Here is an administrative job that you are doing very well, and we want you to continue to do so."

Vera Baird: The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) is wrong to suggest that the Bill is likely to increase the administrative burden on magistrates courts' staff. Although they will have more calculating to do, which is a skill that they are used to using—despite what the hon. Gentleman said, staff in magistrates courts are actually of a high calibre—it is expected that there will be between 10 and 20 per cent. fewer applications because the means test will screen out an awful lot of people. The Bill is thus administratively neutral.

Bridget Prentice: My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point. We think that the Bill might well screen out more than 10 to 20 per cent. of applications—perhaps up to 30 per cent. of applications. I am happy to reiterate her important point that the calibre of magistrates courts' staff is high. As I said, they already carry out similar work at the moment and that is likely to continue.
	The proposed Crown court scheme will use a combination of powers within existing legislation and new powers under the Bill. Applicants for legal aid in the Crown court will be assessed on financial eligibility as well as the interests of justice. In contrast to the magistrates court scheme, individuals who fail the means test will still be eligible for legal aid. However, they will be expected to contribute towards the cost of their defence. Another notable difference between the magistrates court and Crown court schemes is the proposed capital test, under which liquid assets in excess of £8,000 held in cash accounts at bank and building societies are the subject of a single, one-off contribution. As with the magistrates court scheme, aggregation of means is a feature of that model. The Government propose a phased introduction in which the magistrates court scheme is introduced first and allowed to bed in before the Crown court scheme is launched.

David Heath: What is the reference date for that assessment? It would be all too easy for someone to ensure that they do not have liquid capital assets available for means-testing at a Crown court hearing if they knew that that would be a sensible thing to do in preparation for such an appearance.

Bridget Prentice: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid and important point. We will ensure that the assessment is made at the earliest opportunity, possibly at the point of arrest, before people have a chance to try to disperse their assets. I am happy to hold further discussions, however, about the best time for assessment.

Adam Afriyie: We are right to be concerned that people with limited financial means should have access to advice and legal aid, but what measures has the hon. Lady considered introducing, especially in complex criminal trials involving large assets, to deal with someone from a wealthy family who may have an offshore trust or who may be the beneficiary of another trust with assets that are not necessarily visible in the UK?

Bridget Prentice: As I said, we will look at liquid assets in an individual's personal bank and building society accounts. We should think carefully about whether we want to introduce a more complex system to assess assets, as the aim of the Bill is to try to keep things as simple and straightforward as possible. In the regulations we will make sure that we can identify those assets as easily and simply as possible. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are other laws to deal with the proceeds of crime and so on if someone is found guilty.
	The new scheme is outlined in greater detail in the supplement to the framework document accompanying the Bill. In developing the Bill, the Government have not only listened to, and acted on, the findings and recommendations of the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs on an earlier draft, but we have taken into account the considered opinions of a wide range of stakeholders. We have worked particularly closely with the Law Society to refine the means test model and produce a scheme that is both fair and sensitive to the circumstances of individual applicants without placing an undue burden on those responsible for administering the system.
	We have addressed and, we believe, satisfied, early concerns voiced by the judiciary about the original appeals process. We firmly believe that there should not be an appeal to the court on the basis of financial eligibility, but we are satisfied that the case has been made that there may be an appeal to the court based on the interests of justice. However, an amendment accepted in the Lords removed the power to review decisions on financial eligibility from the Bill. Those decisions will now be subject to a full appeal to the court. That is unacceptable. Not only is it a misdirection of the courts' resources, but members of the senior judiciary agree that the means test is a wholly administrative assessment that does not require judicial oversight, apart, of course, from judicial review. We will seek to overturn the amendment in the Commons.
	The Government believe that the Criminal Defence Service Bill is both innovative and practical. While we have placed a high value on measures to develop an administratively simple scheme, we have given equal importance to measures to ensure that defendants are treated fairly and consistently. The scheme will be transparent and measures will be taken so that it can be easily understood by defendants, solicitors and the court-based teams responsible for its administration. By streamlining legal aid and cutting bureaucracy we have created a strong, flexible legal aid system able to withstand the rigours of the modern criminal justice system. The new scheme will allow legal aid to continue to safeguard the rights of the vulnerable, but will also achieve maximum value for the taxpayer. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.

Jonathan Djanogly: I begin by declaring any interests that I may have as a practising solicitor.
	The Bill allows for the power to grant rights to representation to be transferred from the courts to the Legal Services Commission, introduces a means test for the grant of such funding and, where the test is met, provides for contribution orders based on means. Several amendments were made to the Bill in another place, and I pay tribute to the significant progress that was made there.
	We, the Conservative Opposition, feel that access to justice is a serious matter that requires full and detailed consideration. Through the determined efforts of our noble Friends, such detailed consideration has already been possible. We welcome the restoration—by amendment in the other place—of responsibility for legal aid matters to the Lord Chancellor, as we welcome the amendments that have been made relating to appeals. I was sorry to hear the Minister say that she will attempt to overturn those at a later stage.

Vera Baird: I am interested to know the views of the Opposition. It is undoubtedly mostly a matter of arithmetic to establish whether somebody is in or outside the financial eligibility criteria. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that judicial time could be appropriately used on an appeal against that, or does he have some alternative model in mind?

Jonathan Djanogly: I intend to discuss that in greater detail, so if the hon. and learned Lady will wait, I shall come on to it. It is important that the court should be able to hear appeals on the interests of justice test, as well as on the eligibility test, and should be able to consider those matters afresh.
	The Conservative party has long been in favour of many of the measures in the Bill, in particular means-testing for those who can afford it, which the Government abolished in 2001. We opposed the abolition of the means test during the passage of the Access to Justice Act 1999, which the Bill amends. Now, after four years' experience, the Government wish to bring back means-testing. It has taken them eight years to bring back the NHS internal market and eight years to bring back grant-maintained schools, so perhaps we should be impressed that it has taken them only four years to do a U-turn on legal aid and means-testing.
	The measure is basically right. Those who can make a contribution to their own defence costs ought to do so. However, we need to ensure that those who cannot make such a contribution are still properly represented and not disadvantaged within the criminal justice system. That second aspect is conspicuously missing from the Bill. The proposed means test involves a calculation to derive an adjusted level of income for the purposes of considering eligibility. Various deductions are made on a proportional basis from overall household income to reflect a client's costs. As the Minister explained, if a client's adjusted income falls between a higher and a lower threshold, a more detailed assessment is required to establish whether the client qualifies. Clients will not qualify for public funding in the magistrates court if their calculated disposable income is above £3,156 a year.
	The Department has suggested that the abolition of the means test has contributed to the rising costs of criminal legal aid. As the draft Bill and consultation paper put it in 2004,
	"Since the abolition of the means test many who previously would have been privately represented or who choose to represent themselves have applied for public funding."
	It stated that the
	"re-introduction of the means test will focus the resources on those that need help the most."
	All that led the Constitutional Affairs Committee—rightly, in our view—to question whether there is enough joined-up thinking, principally between the Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Home Office, in the overall approach to criminal justice policy. It concluded at paragraph 46:
	"We recommend that the Department should ensure that initiatives rolled out by other Departments, especially the Home Office, are properly costed so that their impact on the Criminal Defence Service budget can be taken into account. This is an essential feature of 'joined up Government' and needs to be done so that the Government can consider the causes of rising costs, rather than merely relying on the Department to tackle the symptoms".
	It would be helpful if the Minister could give us a progress report on how that recommendation is being carried forward.

Bridget Prentice: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman a progress report: we have introduced a legal aid impact assessment test, which is part of the regulatory impact assessment that every Department conducts when it introduces legislation. If any legislation introduced in this House impacts on legal aid, it must be funded or another way must be found to deal with it.

Jonathan Djanogly: I thank the Minister for explaining that all legislation requires a regulatory impact assessment, which I shall discuss later in my speech.
	The press briefing that the Government published in May at the time of the Queen's Speech estimated that the Bill would lead to annual savings of more than £35 million. We sincerely hope that it will, but it would be useful to hear more about how the Government reached that conclusion. After all, the original justifications for abolishing means-testing back in 1999 were that the system was too bureaucratic, which led to delays in cases being brought to trial and added significantly higher costs, and that it applied to less than 1 per cent. of applicants. It would be interesting for the House to hear how the Labour party, which abolished means-testing as a cost-saving measure, is going to reintroduce means-testing as a cost-saving measure.
	In its response to the draft Bill in 2004, the Constitutional Affairs Committee concluded:
	"We do not think these proposals have been properly costed. The Department has produced no convincing evidence demonstrating that reintroducing means testing would result in substantial cost savings".
	We support the Bill in principle, but we want to see more convincing evidence that it will have the desired effect. Will the Minister provide more detail on the projected savings?
	We want to address several other issues in Committee. For instance, concern remains about the perverse incentive for defendants to choose the Crown court in cases that may be tried either way in order to ensure a more favourable position on legal aid. That serves only to increase costs, and the matter requires further review. We are still concerned about a related aspect of the Bill, which seeks to translate the magistrates court regime in a modified form to the Crown court simply by delegated legislation. We are of the opinion that separate regimes should be introduced simultaneously for magistrates courts and for Crown courts through primary legislation to avoid uncertainty in the drafting of the regulations and the perverse incentives that I have just mentioned. We believe that those points outweigh the benefits of first appraising the magistrates court scheme.
	Despite our welcoming the Bill in principle, it is a very small step towards the desperately needed reform of the legal aid system, which the Government have allowed to fall into disrepair, and much more remains to be done. The Minister's speech was short on detail on the Bill's impact—for instance, what percentage of the population will have their access to legal aid restricted by the Bill? That is why I want to address some of the broader legal issues.
	The soaring cost of legal aid in England and Wales forms the background to the Bill and this debate. The problem is not new, and I concede that it is not exclusive to the current Administration, because Governments of both parties have grappled with the cost of legal aid over the past three decades or more. It is clear that the problem has become acute since this Government entered office: in 1997, the total legal aid budget stood at around £1.5 billion; this year, it is more than £2 billion, which is an increase of some 35 per cent. while this Government have been in office.
	More than half of that £2 billion is spent on criminal legal aid, the cost of which has risen dramatically. Since 2000–01, there has been a significant rise in the cost to the criminal defence service of criminal legal representation in the magistrates courts. By contrast, spending on civil legal aid, excluding the cost of asylum, has fallen in real terms by 24 per cent. since 1997. That in turn has forced many high street solicitors to go to the wall, restricting access to justice for many of the most vulnerable in our society. For example, as I found out through a written question earlier this year, the number of high street solicitor firms offering representation for legal aid and family cases has decreased by more than one third in the past five years.
	That is despite the Government's ambition, as set out in the 1997 manifesto, to reform legal aid and achieve value for money for the taxpayer and the consumer. Meanwhile, at this year's election the Government promised to reform legal aid better to help the vulnerable. Their predicament seems to have led to a state of paralysis, and regrettably the vulnerable are being hit the hardest due to their inability to access lawyers who take on legal aid cases.
	We agree that the growth in spending on the criminal defence service has to be checked. In the words of Lord Justice Judge in his evidence to the Select Committee on Constitutional Affairs, which reported on the draft Criminal Defence Service Bill in 2004, and to which the whole House is indebted for its work in this area,
	"we simply cannot work on the basis . . . that there is a tree at the bottom of the garden full of ten pound notes. There is not, and therefore there has to be some control exercised."
	As the Magistrates Association put it,
	"there is a large and continued increase in the amount of money spent on legal aid, and we accept that the amount available is not infinite."
	We agree.
	The fundamental legal aid review was announced by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) in May 2004. On 19 July this year, I made a request to the Department of Constitutional Affairs under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 in relation to the review. The relevant DCA press release stated that the review would be
	"a far-reaching study into the underlying legal aid system, which will focus on how best to provide legal help to those who need it in the longer term."
	Some of its conclusions were set out in the July 2005 paper, "A fairer deal for legal aid", but the Minister decided on the basis of public interest to withhold the detailed responses and conclusions contained in an internal report. I called for an internal review of that decision, which resulted in certain limited material being made available. Nevertheless, the contents of the internal report remain elusive. That is entirely unsatisfactory, and one has to query why such information is being withheld. It seems only to add further weight to the concern that the legal aid system is in a state of crisis. The fact that fewer than two fifths of the population now qualify for legal aid sits rather uncomfortably with the concept that everyone is entitled to access to justice so that they can enforce and defend their legal rights and so that the Government and other powerful bodies can be held to account or contested where necessary.
	The ridiculous extremes of bureaucracy involved in the legal aid process must continue to be broken down, and where savings measures are introduced, the savings must be real. The Government give in to the ever-present pressure to come up with short-term reforms designed to control the budget, but what is needed is a long-term strategy, particularly to reduce the amount spent on high-cost cases. The following figures represent the crux of the problem, which the Government are not adequately addressing. The half dozen most expensive criminal legal aid cases in 2003 amounted to no less than 25 per cent. of the total criminal legal aid budget. One per cent. of the highest cost cases amounted to between 40 and 50 per cent. of the total criminal legal aid budget.
	The problem is not that the Government are spending too little money but that cases need to be managed more efficiently. There needs to be clarity about what legal aid is spent on. The Crown Prosecution Service needs to manage cases more effectively, as do judges. Dealing with the management issues at an early stage will help to avoid even bigger problems and spiralling costs later on. Yet the Government seem utterly unable to get to grips with the problem, which is not new.

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman is making a very poor point. He said that very high-cost cases accounted for between 40 and 50 per cent. of all criminal legal aid spending. That is so, as it was in 1996, when the Conservatives were in office. Since then, it has gone up from 42 per cent. to 49 per cent., but we are tackling it, whereas the hon. Gentleman's Government did nothing whatever.

Jonathan Djanogly: Eight years later, here we are talking about what needs to be done, and the best that the hon. and learned Lady can say is that the last Conservative Government did not get it right.

Vera Baird: Would the hon. Gentleman like me to tell him over what period of time the same proportion of high-cost cases took up criminal legal aid? It was for many years while the Conservative Government were in office. We are trying to tackle that. I repeat that the Conservative Government did nothing about the problem for 18 years. We are trying to do something. How can he accuse us?

Jonathan Djanogly: With barristers and magistrates going on strike, law firms closing down week after week—

Vera Baird: rose—

Jonathan Djanogly: No, I shall not give way to the hon. and learned Lady again.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have two hon. Members on their feet at the same time. The hon. and learned Lady must know whether the hon. Gentleman who has the Floor is giving way to her.

Jonathan Djanogly: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Vera Baird: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Jonathan Djanogly: No, I shall not. The hon. and learned Lady has already intervened several times. The fact that the Government have to have a Home Office Parliamentary Private Secretary as the only Labour Back Bencher in the Chamber reflects the Labour party's attitude to legal aid and the crisis in the system.

Vera Baird: rose—

Jonathan Djanogly: I shall not give way.
	I repeat that the Government appear unable to get to grips with the problem. It represents a significant failure on the part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. It must know that the reintroduction of means-testing will not solve the problem or make significant savings in relative terms.
	The Law Society said in its submission to the fundamental legal aid review of January this year that early skilled diagnosis would have the most benefit in controlling the budget and prevent straightforward issues from becoming more significant and therefore a greater burden. It recommended the early identification of problems, and access by clients to appropriate services through a single point of entry offering legal aid services at different levels, or planned referrals. That will enable firms and advice agencies that already exist to take on extra rolls and expand their business. Does the Under-Secretary agree that that is a sensible way forward? If so, will she assure us that something will be done to implement it?
	Work needs to be done on proposals for competitive price tendering. If such proposals are to succeed, we cannot have a system that runs a high risk of being no more than a cost-cutting exercise, which will inevitably reduce access to justice and the quality of advice and representation that is available to legally aided clients. Given the range of quality accredited suppliers already in existence, where is the justification for jeopardising quality purely to save costs? Representations have been made to us that small, often ethnic, inner-city firms will have to close shop because of the proposals. The high street criminal practice could become almost defunct.
	The graduated fee scheme could have the perverse effect of encouraging barristers to drag out cases so that the longer they last, the more money they receive. It is also worth pointing out that, although civil and criminal legal aid constitute different pots, the Government appear to want to examine the whole. Losing control of criminal legal aid budgets has meant a collapse in civil legal aid, excluding asylum, by 24 per cent. in real terms since 1997 as criminal expenditure has risen by 37 per cent. We need imaginative solutions to achieve a sustainable legal aid system and an application of basic management skills to criminal case management.
	Another concern is the falling number of solicitors who choose criminal law defence work as a career. Work needs to be done to increase participation. The number of solicitors' offices that provide criminal defence services has fallen by 25 per cent. from 3,500 in April 2001 to 2,651 in September this year. Legal aid practitioners should be of a high quality and receive proper compensation. In a survey that the Law Society conducted, 50 per cent. of trainee solicitors said that, all things being equal, they were likely to pursue a career in legal aid work. However, the practical reality is that only 8 per cent. said that they were indeed likely to pursue a career in legal aid. Financial uncertainty is a particular problem for young barristers, who have not even the guarantee of a meagre salary.
	Given that legal aid rates have not increased for approximately eight years, the idea of attaching the tag of "fat cat" to the average criminal lawyer is perverse. Indeed, the problem is so bad that criminal practitioners tell me that very few wish to practise criminal law. Of those who do, many want to become prosecutors, who get a decent salary.
	Perhaps the Under-Secretary could describe the pilots for state defenders. I understand that they are even more expensive than private defence solicitors. Firms also need some predictability in their businesses. Many face immense pressure as they try to deal with new proposals and the complexities of the current system in a hostile environment.
	In relation specifically to criminal law, the increased complexity of the law as well as trial length must be taken into account, as the Bar Council has argued that those are the central drivers in increasing costs. It has cited annual criminal justice Bills and other legislation, which, over the past decade, have produced major changes in almost every area of legal practice and procedure. Two important examples are the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
	Changes to sentencing guidelines and the increase in the number of offences that carry a prison sentence are further factors. In cases in which imprisonment is the likely consequence of a conviction, the interests of justice test in assessing entitlement to legal aid is more likely to be satisfied, causing more frequent grants of rights to representation. Imprisonment is increasing; indeed, the prison population today stands at about 77,000, an increase of 28 per cent. since 1997.
	The effects of the Government's overall criminal justice policy must also be taken into account. For example, targets to increase arrest rates and the creation of a vast number of new criminal offences are contributory factors. That point was made by the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) in her very worthwhile comments in a recent Westminster Hall debate. Surely the message is that, if we are going to charge more people, send more people to Crown court trials and lock more people up, the costs of processing the accused—including legal aid costs—will rise.
	Criminal solicitors are threatening to close up shop and criminal barristers have gone on strike, yet the Government seem unable to see that we need provisions to address the legal aid problems that are handicapping some of the most vulnerable and disadvantaged people in our society. What is needed is not simply to restrict the number of people being helped by the legal aid system, as the Bill proposes, but what was proposed in the Government's own report, "A Fairer Deal for Legal Aid", which was published in July this year. That is, a legal aid system that will be
	"fair and effective, providing access to justice for all who need it".
	Why can the Government not respond to their own message? If the Minister thinks that we, or the legal profession, will accept the Bill as the answer to the legal aid crisis, she will have to think again.

Vera Baird: I congratulate the Government on the Bill, which I welcome. I also congratulate those in another place who did a very good job of teasing out the Bill's problems and giving them a good airing so that they could be addressed. It is not appropriate to arrogate that activity to just one side, which the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) sought to do. It is perfectly clear that the Liberal Democrats played a role, and that the hon. Gentleman's colleague and the Liberal Democrats in the other place were very complimentary about my noble colleague, Baroness Ashton. It seemed to have been a job well done all round.
	It is a pity, therefore, that the atmosphere of trying to bring the Bill to fruition in everyone's interests cannot be maintained in this House, and that there has to be inaccurate cat-calling from the Conservative Front Bench. That is utterly unnecessary, and the hon. Member for Huntingdon really does get a great deal wrong. It is odd to hear him talk about the virtues of means-testing—the Conservatives usually speak of its evils—when its purpose is to get people out of poverty. The Tories took the extraordinary line only a few years ago of criticising the Government when they were doing their best to improve bureaucracy by abolishing a means test.
	I also want to put the hon. Gentleman right on another point. There are plenty of applicants for the criminal Bar. My own chambers has hundreds of applicants per year.

Jeremy Wright: Will the hon. and learned Lady give way?

Vera Baird: I will in a moment. I know that the hon. Gentleman has an interest in this matter.
	My chambers has hundreds of applicants every year, and I am aware of a number of young people who have now done all their training for the criminal bar and who would desperately like to get into it. They also have an ethic of public service, which helps. I wonder whether the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) is aware of that.

Jeremy Wright: I certainly am. The hon. and learned Lady is right to say that I have an interest in these matters. I practise, as she did, at the criminal Bar. I understand that plenty of people might apply to chambers such as hers, to be at the criminal Bar. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said, the issue is how many people are going to be able to afford to practise at the criminal Bar, when there are many more lucrative options elsewhere in the legal profession. Does not the hon. and learned Lady agree that we should be attracting the brightest and best to criminal law, rather than allowing them to go elsewhere?

Vera Baird: If the Bar, made up as it is almost totally of white, upper-middle-class males, had some years ago paid attention to attracting the best, from whatever sector of society, the current imbalance in the Bar and judiciary would not prevail. The hon. Gentleman's point is not without foundation, however. There has been an understanding that because the rewards at the top of the Bar are good—as he knows—women and men together should just tolerate what there is at the bottom. That is not really a practical picture any more, but the Government have their eyes on that. In my debate in Westminster Hall, on which the hon. Member for Huntingdon commented and which the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth attended, there was a clear understanding on all sides, particularly in the Minister's response, that what she called the "baby Bar" should, in the eyes of the Government, be given improved circumstances. That, of course, is what we all want.
	There is a certain amount of agreement, and it is false to sow, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon did over the preceding 20 minutes, some sort of queer animosity about matters that are not in the Bill. That causes a fair amount of concern. He talked, for instance, about it being the Government's fault that there is a perverse incentive for barristers, who are paid a refresher for every day longer that a case continues, and who therefore have no interest in shortening it. Of course, that is not the Government's fault; it is the basis on which barristers have been paid for a long time. I recall it from when I went into business as a barrister, roughly at the time, in an unfortunate coincidence, that Lady Thatcher became Prime Minister. I noted then that it was a curious way of paying people at the Bar. It needs to be attacked, but it is nothing to do with this Government.
	The hon. Member for Huntingdon must face the fact that many of the things that he highlighted, such as the way in which barristers are paid and the excessive amount that very high-cost cases take from the criminal legal aid budget, go back many years. It is not sufficient for him to say that the Government have not tackled those issues over the past eight years when his Government did not even try to tackle any of them. He shakes his head, but I am willing to sit down and listen to him tell me in an intervention exactly what his Government did about very high-cost cases, recruiting people of all classes to the Bar and trying to remove the perverse incentives about which he now complains. I am waiting for his intervention.

Jonathan Djanogly: It is not a question of what this or that Government did, but of how we can move things forward. The hon. and learned Lady misrepresents what I said in my speech. I did attack the Government where they needed attacking, but I also provided a series of pointers to how the position can be improved. I think that she agreed with me to that extent. Perhaps we can move forward now.

Vera Baird: If the hon. Gentleman reads his speech he will realise that he said that magistrates are on strike, which is utter rubbish, and that the Bar is on strike, which is utter rubbish—strike action was threatened for a very few days but it was accepted that Lord Carter of Coles understood their interests. The hon. Gentleman misrepresented that. He also blamed the Government for the way in which those at the Bar are paid. It was a lot of rubbish and it was quite unnecessary. I do not know why he cannot focus on the issues, which are that the Bill will promote some savings but a good deal more fairness. He ought, like his colleagues in the other place, to welcome and try to include it.
	The Bill provides a reasonably simple formula, which, in magistrates courts, where costs are quite low, will exclude from legal aid those whose income is above a particular level. The hon. Gentleman did not appear to have digested the fact that there is a separate system for the Crown court, which is now in a supplement to the framework document. That different model will allow for the much higher costs in a Crown court, with a barrier over which one cannot get legal aid and a barrier under which one gets it whatever, with those in the middle being dealt with through a refined and fairly reasonable, on the face of it, basis of means-testing. That comes with the important proviso, on which everyone should be able to focus, that someone who is acquitted, all other things being equal, should be entitled to a defence costs order. That is also subject to the proviso that there must be an interests of justice override where the sheer mathematics are such that the interests of justice are not represented in giving a grant of representation.
	There is also the issue of fairness—fairness to us all because we all pay in the end, and legal aid must be well organised, and also an element of fairness in the establishment of equivalence with civil legal aid. There have always been contributions on a means-tested basis for the purpose of civil legal aid, but that has not always applied to criminal legal aid, which seems slightly odd. The theory may be that because criminal defendants have no option but to be in that position, they should not be required to contribute, but defendants in civil cases often have no option either. It is odd that both groups have not always been subject to means-testing.
	The other important aspect of fairness is clear: no one who needs representation should not be given it. I am very pleased that in the House of Lords everyone coalesced around the interests of justice test, and that it is to stay.
	The hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) levelled a criticism at the change of heart, but I do not think that it should have been a criticism. The idea behind the scrapping of the means test was pretty simple. The costs in magistrates courts are very low. The state probably pays less if it bears them than if it must engage people to calculate a means test on a very complex basis in order to recover a small amount at a rate of perhaps a pound or two a week. That must have seemed a very reasonable position to take. Moreover, there was a huge increase in legal aid certificates that could not rationally be linked to the changes, almost as if there had been carte blanche for everyone to receive a certificate. That has led to anomalies. No one could possibly cheer when well-paid footballers receive legal aid for antisocial behaviour without making a contribution, and there is clearly a need for change.

David Burrowes: When I was practising as a criminal solicitor, it was proposed that means-testing should be abolished. Solicitors did not propose its abolition; they, indeed all practitioners, were saying "Let us deal with the implementation and administration of the scheme." It was the Government who went ahead and abolished it. We, or anyone else, could have told them that applications would increase. It does not require sophisticated judgment to conclude that once those accused of drink-driving offences, for instance, are allowed legal aid there will be an increase in the number of certificates.

Vera Baird: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. The notion that the Government made the change without consulting the professions and other stakeholders widely is totally incorrect.

David Burrowes: Did they listen?

Vera Baird: Of course they listened. I cannot comment on whether members of the hon. Gentleman's branch of the profession said what he tells us they said, but I was active in the magistrates court at the time.

David Burrowes: It was made clear to me, as a member of the London Courts Solicitors Association, that the problem related to the practical implementation. The position is improving greatly, but the Government seemed to decide, no doubt in the interests of finance, to abolish means-testing without considering what the effects might be. That is symptomatic of their tendency to pigeonhole decisions—to make them at one end without seeing the probable outcomes at the other.

Vera Baird: It really was not as clear as that. If the hon. Gentleman shows me some brilliant document from the London Criminal Courts Solicitors Association suggesting a better mechanism for means-testing, I shall be very surprised. There was undoubtedly wide stakeholder consultation on the proposal, and it was a realistic possibility that it would be cheaper not to means-test than to means-test. However, there was inconsistency in the ways in which various magistrates courts were granting certificates. In some areas, it was seen as an invitation to open the floodgates; in others, that did not apply to the same extent. A number of certificates were issued that would not have been issued before, but there was no match between the change and the increase.

David Heath: Surely at the time there was a trade-off between increasing the speed of legal proceedings by removing what was seen as an obstacle and a potential increase in costs. The view taken at the time was that removing the means test was likely to involve more benefit than disbenefit. Now it appears that the opposite view has been taken.

Vera Baird: Yes, that played a significant role but, in addition, removing that layer of bureaucracy was intended to be cheaper. Clearly, there are unacceptable occasions when someone who is very well to do receives legal aid, which has pointed to the need for a new look at the whole system. I hope that we will end up with a smarter, slicker, neater means test. It should not hold back justice significantly, especially given the high calibre of the people who will implement it through the service level agreement. The scheme should be coherent and consistent. The LSC has the background responsibility, but it will be delegated to those on the front line who have the practical skills. Therefore, one hopes for consistency and simplicity of application, so that we can get the best out of it.
	I said that I thought that the scheme was a combination of fairness and savings. The savings are estimated to be around £35 million. Of course, they are well worth having. I guess that they will come from exclusions, from 10 to 20 per cent. fewer applications and from contributions. I do not know whether there will be any administrative savings as well, but it is key that, essentially, the same people will be involved, who will have the knowledge. I know that the Bar was worried about handing over the decisions on merits to the LSC when it was not front-line, court experienced. I think that that has been managed sensibly through the scheme.
	As I have mentioned, it is imperative that we use legal aid in the civil system to ensure that we attack social exclusion. We have to disperse our available legal advice and other advice about debt and so on, and ensure that the poor, who cannot in another way obtain such advice, are resourced to get it. Many poor people do not know their rights. They are at the bottom economically, with no power of that kind to fight back. They can be pushed around by authorities, those who have better resources, organisations, Government and local government, because they do not have that power. Their rights can and will be abused if they are not given sufficient resources to have, as it were, a friend on their side who can advance their case. That imbalance must be addressed and legal aid in the civil sector is an important part of that.
	It is also important that there should not be any lessening in the adequacy of support in the criminal sector. We are getting more cases to court. Surely everyone welcomes that. The conviction rate is getting better. We have better investigation, charging and review of charging. There is support for witnesses under the no witness, no justice scheme, so that witnesses have more confidence to come to court. That is what we all want—to catch more criminals, to bring them to court and, we hope, to play a role in reducing crime and the fear of crime.
	That is all very good. It will inevitably increase legal aid costs, but we must keep the matter in proportion. There must not be any diminution of input into legal aid. I fear that, occasionally in these discussions, we lose sight of the fact that often people who come to court are not guilty and they need support to make their case. They can be found not guilty for a range of reasons, from mistaken identity or scientific evidence to having a legal defence. They may have been put into the frame by some criminal to get himself out of it. I have defended innumerable people who, on the face of the papers, I did not think would be easy to defend. I have found that I have been right to fight very hard for their cause because, in truth, they were not guilty. One cannot always see from the papers that that is the case. Therefore, do not let the savings be automatically allocated to civil legal aid if that is going to mean that there is inadequate resourcing of people on the criminal side.
	The Longford lecture was recently delivered by Baroness Hale, the first Law Lady. She made another point that emphasises the importance of adequate criminal legal aid. She drew attention—her lecture was about women in the criminal justice system—to the fact that about 30 per cent. of women in prison have suffered from long-term domestic violence. About a quarter have been raped or have suffered sexual abuse—conviction rates for both offences are low—and they are highly unlikely to have received any justice. About half had either psychiatric or addictive behaviours in the year before they were taken into custody.
	It is reasonably clear from that—though it would be a great jump if one were doing a research thesis—that trauma and chaos have been thrown into these women's lives and that they often turn to crime as a way of dealing with their poverty or with other problems. They have already been failed once—society has let the abuse be inflicted on them and given them no justice—so it is important that they are not failed again by not being provided with enough money to defend themselves.

David Davies: rose—

Vera Baird: That was my last word, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.

David Davies: The hon. and learned Lady is extremely generous in giving way on her last word. I share her concern about the levels of domestic violence, but is she aware that the statistics show that married couples are a quarter less likely to be involved in domestic violence than those who are either co-habiting or single? Does that not suggest that the Government should offer more support to the institution of marriage?

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The figures show that there is more reporting of cases by non-married than by married people. He cannot rightly draw the conclusion that he has drawn. One worries that people hold on to marriages longer than they should because of the institution of marriage, but that is a very different debate.
	I want to end by saying that the new fairness is very welcome, that the savings are very welcome and that I look forward to them being used even-handedly and wisely across the range of legal aid.

David Heath: It is a pleasure, as always, to follow the hon. and learned Lady. As is also very often the case, I agree with a great part of what she said. In particular, I agree that we should not be ashamed of legal aid; rather, we should rejoice in it. I am one of the few non-lawyers—either practising or non-practising—who is contributing to this evening's debate, but I want to make it absolutely plain that legal aid is unequivocally one of the most important pillars of the welfare state. It is as important in its way as provisions for education, health or social security, because allowing people access to justice is the mark of a civilised society—and that means ensuring that they are properly represented if they find themselves before a court of law.
	Our debate has encompassed the whole of legal aid rather than the specifics of the Bill on Second Reading—I think that that is entirely appropriate in the present circumstances. It is important that we say how important both the criminal and civil legal aid systems are. It is right to acknowledge how the criminal legal aid budget has unfortunately squeezed the civil legal aid budget to an unacceptable degree. We should recognise the Government's difficulties in controlling the budget. Of course we recognise that dealing with it presents a problem for them, but it is not unreasonable also to say that we do not entirely agree with the way in which they have addressed the problem, notwithstanding what is contained in the Bill.
	What I have found particularly distressing about Government propaganda recently is the constant concentration on so-called fat-cat lawyers to the exclusion of those who provide day-to-day services throughout the country to people who truly need the support of a solicitor or junior barrister in the courts. The more the attention of the press, the media and the public is drawn to a very small number of QCs operating at the Old Bailey or elsewhere to the exclusion of the rest of the profession, the more we do a disservice to the totality of the profession and the legal aid that is provided. It is a diversionary tactic that is intended to provide a hate figure for more easily led colleagues. They say, "We have got to do something about these very rich lawyers," without recognising that there is a very thin dividing line between reducing the excesses of some and reducing the effectiveness of the whole.

Adam Afriyie: Legal aid is incredibly important to the least well-off and most vulnerable in society, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that an absence of legal aid practising solicitors is equally iniquitous?

David Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right and I will deal with that point in a moment. We rightly always draw attention to the most vulnerable and the least financially able to make a point, but this issue affects a much wider swathe of individuals. It is a truism to say that nobody—and certainly not the articulate middle classes—thinks about legal aid until they themselves are in a court and have no access to a solicitor at the point of need. One of the difficulties in arguing the case for legal aid effectively is perhaps that so many people assume that they will never be in that position until they are. Then they realise just how important its provision is.
	Much has been made of the idea that fees to lawyers are a substantial part of the problem, but in fact the evidence suggests the reverse. Remuneration for the large bulk of those providing legal aid is not excessive by any means and fees have been frozen for some time. The legal aid budget has risen inexorably simply because of the volume of business being pushed through, which is largely the result of the huge number of prosecutable offences that have been put on to the statute book. I do not know the precise figure, but the last time that I looked, this Government had created some 700 new offences. I suspect that the figure is now approaching 800. The legal aid impact test is now being applied to new legislation, but it is 800 offences too late: the damage has already been done.
	New offences are included in Bills with monotonous regularity; sometimes, they are included before the offences that they are replacing have even been implemented. That provides work for lawyers but is of no advantage to anybody else. We must ask ourselves what the consequences are of such an approach. One way to reduce the legal aid budget is to have a sensible prosecuting policy and not to prosecute such absurd offences as reading out a list of names by the Cenotaph. In the first instance, we need sensible laws and offences that do not unnecessarily restrict free speech.
	The attempt to get other Departments to share the legal aid costs associated with the offences that they put on the statute book is laudable, but I shall believe it when I see it happen. I fear that the Department for Constitutional Affairs does not have the clout within Government and the Cabinet to make this idea work. It could have worked, had my and others' proposal come to fruition to replace the DCA with a full-blown ministry of justice that takes significant powers from the Home Office. If we had that big player in government, perhaps more account might be taken of this idea. When I see the Home Office divesting itself of a significant part of its budget and handing it over to the DCA to pay for the consequences of the offences that it has put on to the statute book in this year's criminal justice legislation, this year's asylum and immigration legislation or this year's anti-terrorism legislation, perhaps I will believe it. Until that happens, I fear that this is a fruitless endeavour.
	We have also heard about the management of cases, but that cannot be swept aside as irrelevant, as it is critical to the amount of costs incurred. If we managed prosecutions better, we could manage defence cases better. At present, the evidence is that the management of cases, and of high-cost cases in particular, is lamentably poor in many instances, with the result that costs are higher.
	The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) mentioned early intervention. Although he was speaking more about civil cases than criminal ones, I agree that early intervention can prevent matters going to court that otherwise would have to and that the effect is to reduce costs overall.
	I shall give some examples of how not to deal with the expanding legal aid budget. First, we must be very careful about the thresholds that are applied. I pay tribute to the Government for having listened to the Liberal Democrats' departmental committee on this subject, and to the views of my noble Friends in another place. The system that has emerged has a built-in sensitivity that might not have been expected. A steep or sharp threshold would mean that there was a point at which a person's income would suddenly require him or her to pay the full costs of defence, even though that person had not had to pay anything before that point was reached. That would be inappropriate, whereas the tapering that is in place is entirely appropriate. However, the test is whether people are denied access to justice by their means, and that is a test that we cannot yet apply.
	The second way not to deal with the matter is to reduce the service that lawyers can provide to clients. An example of that is evident in the immigration service, where the whole thrust of previous immigration legislation has been to cut costs by reducing what lawyers can do for their clients. The effect has been to drive good practitioners out, and to allow poorer practitioners to be the sole defence resource for those who need it.
	We must also be careful about reducing fees. The Government have chosen a very arbitrary way to reduce fees, especially for junior counsel, but the number of people practising at the Bar and as solicitors is falling. It is very difficult to find legal aid solicitors in large parts of the country and, if we are not careful, the result will be that some places will become advice deserts. Often, the most deprived areas are not the worst affected: perversely, people in the most affluent areas are less likely to have legal aid practitioners. It is probably the worst thing of all to be poor in an affluent area, as such people have no access to services that they have a right to expect.
	The House needs to be aware of how few practitioners there are in the less affluent and rural parts of Britain. As I have said many times, my town of Frome has a magistrates court but only one practitioner in one practice providing criminal legal aid. He can do so because he is cross-subsidised by the rest of the practice, but his colleagues' patience about that cross-subsidy may not last for ever. It is often reported that Frome magistrates court will close and that it will move to a new location 35 miles away. If that happens, I am sure that the patience of the other partners in the practice will be exhausted, as they will not want their colleague to be out of the office all day, every day, on visits to faraway magistrates courts. The result will be that there will be no one to represent people who require criminal legal aid in the magistrates courts in my area.
	That is a huge concern. It is bad enough to have only one practitioner, given the obvious potential for a conflict of interest to arise. For example, the practitioner in Frome often represents interesting young gentlemen—I shall not say "thugs"—and in their defence makes a familiar speech, telling the court about the extraordinary behaviour that a break-up with a girlfriend occasioned, and about the remorse that the young gentleman in question has expressed. However, that might coincide with his client having a fight with another young gentleman, whose story is suspiciously similar. That could involve a conflict of interests. If we do not have such practitioners, how will we provide the service?
	I am dubious about having a public defender service as a matter of course, which seems to me to be the direction in which we are inexorably headed. If that happened, the state would investigate the crime, mount the prosecution, try the crime and defend the defendant. I am not sure that that is how criminal justice should work in this country, and we need to be cautious about reaching that situation.

Jeremy Wright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that not only would a criminal defence service be not necessarily better for the defendant, but—on the evidence we have so far—it would be no cheaper either?

David Heath: It would almost certainly be more expensive, because we would no longer have the cross-subsidy that I mentioned earlier. It is more and more difficult to maintain that cross-subsidy anyway, as aspects of solicitors' general practice are hived off to other professions. The conveyancing that used to provide a large part of practices' income is now done by others, and other parts of the job are being done by other professions. That means that many towns do not have general practices providing all the services. That may not be a problem in a large city, which will have a variety of practices specialising in different areas, but it is certainly a problem in market towns and rural areas, which have a limited number of solicitors who have to provide a wide range of services.

Vera Baird: The hon. Gentleman makes the point well about the lack of cross-subsidy and the possibility that heavier costs will follow as a consequence. I am interested in his notion that because the state finances a criminal defence it might not be so good. I have done a case in which the criminal defence representatives were able to mobilise the Criminal Cases Review Commission to order the police to seize some evidence in a way that I am convinced that no high street firm would have been able to mobilise an organ of state to do. That may have been because the defence representatives were funded by the state, albeit at arm's length, and had some extra clout in some situations. They certainly did in that case. Is the hon. Gentleman interested in that as a counter-argument?

David Heath: I am certainly always interested in counter-arguments and I do not wish to cast aspersions on the professionalism of lawyers employed in that capacity. Indeed, the source of funding is the same in either case. The question is whether a person is under contract directly to the state—as barristers are not—in a way that would be an innovation in our legal system.
	The point that the hon. and learned Lady makes gives me cause for concern in the other direction, because I would not want us to have an elite defender system any more than I would wish us to have a substandard defender system. If it is true that a state defender would have more clout with the prosecuting authorities than other defenders, something would need to be done to prevent that from happening.

Vera Baird: In the case I mentioned, it was the Criminal Cases Review Commission, not the prosecuting authorities. The defence was able to mobilise that independent third party, and I wondered if it was because it had the clout of being directly financed by the state. It was to the defendant's huge advantage.

David Heath: I am glad for the defendant, but the CCRC needs to look carefully at its independence if it considered more favourably a request from a particular source than one from an equally valid but alternative source.
	Much has been said about the Carter review and what it will achieve. If it achieves everything that is expected of it, it will be a remarkable review indeed. I have some expectation that something will emerge from it. I have a jaundiced view of Government reviews as a rule, because it is this Government's way of saying mañana to establish a review, or a review of a review, or a review of a review of a review. In this instance, however, as the issue is urgent something is likely to emerge. I hope that it is not scuppered, like the Turner review, by the Chancellor of the Exchequer before it is even published. That would be extremely unhelpful.
	I fear that an increase of costs will be involved, so there is a real prospect of that happening but I hope that the DCA will be able, and want, to stand up for itself and say that legal aid and legal services can never be provided on the cheap. They must be effective, but there will always be a cost, and to return to the point with which I began, in response to the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird), we should be proud of the fact that we provide those services to our citizens.
	We shall support the Bill. There is nothing exceptionable in it. I am deeply disappointed that the Minister wants to revisit the issue of appeal, as the sensible amendment proposed by my noble Friend, Lord Goodhart, in the other place commended itself to Members there. The Minister says that the eligibility rules are simply a matter of arithmetic. I disagree. There is of course a large element that is arithmetic and it would be nonsense to require it to be appealed, but there is also the complex issue of whether, in a relationship or partnership, another person's financial position and arrangements should be taken into account as part of the eligibility criteria. That is properly a matter for appeal.
	The previous appeal system was not overused and I do not think the proposed one would be. There would be no significant issues in terms of either costs or delay. At the end of the day, we are talking about the interests of justice. If someone is denied representation who feels that they should have it, it is per se in the interests of justice that we look into why it has been refused, if it is anything other than an incontrovertible case based on simple arithmetic.

Adam Afriyie: If it is simply a matter of a mathematical calculation, there is no reason why the existing court system cannot undertake it.

David Heath: I would not expect an appeal to be heard on a challenge that someone had done their sums wrong. That would not be grounds for appeal, but where the issue is more complex, I would expect the court to take an interest in how the calculations had been made, because that is in the interests of justice. That is the distinction that I want to make, and in Committee I shall argue that point.

Vera Baird: rose—

David Heath: I have spoken for longer than I intended and to be fair to other Members I shall not give way again.
	I was interested in the Minister's response on the relevant date for assessment. I think she suggested, perhaps off the cuff, that it should be the date of arrest, which might be difficult to manage. The date of charge might be rather easier to manage as the relevant date. As that provision will probably appear in regulations rather than in the legislation, it might help if careful consideration were given to it before Committee, so that we have some idea of the Government's thinking.
	I should be interested in exploring the mechanism for the contribution paid. Are we intending that practitioners should be paid, presumably under contract from the commission, irrespective of whether the required contribution had been returned to the commission? Perhaps the Minister will be able to satisfy me on that point in due course.
	We need to consider whether the Bill will achieve the savings that the Minister presumably expects from it. If they can be made, will they come from the contributions that more affluent people make to the cost of legal aid or from reducing the eligibility of those who are less affluent to legal aid at the bottom end? The House needs to be able to understand that important distinction in allowing the Bill to make further progress.
	We have not yet had a satisfactory answer about a basic trade-off. A few years ago, we were told that the reason for abolishing the means test was effectively to produce a quick, efficient system that would obviate the need for lengthy means tests, which were getting in the way. We are now told that the Government's view is that we must reintroduce the means test because that is an effective way to produce a quick, efficient system that will save money for the taxpayer. Clearly, there is a trade-off between the speed of the process and its cost. I appreciate that the Government are trying to find the balance, but they must be clear about where the balance of advantage lies. However, I certainly do not wish to oppose the Bill this evening.

Jeremy Wright: I do not propose to detain the House for long. I declare an interest as a non-practising criminal barrister and as a distinctly thin cat, rather than a fat cat, in the course of my practice. I have two concerns about the Bill. First, it does not perhaps address in the way that the Government hope it will the fundamental problem at the heart of the criminal legal aid budget. Secondly, in trying to address the problem in that way, the danger is that the Bill will damage the criminal justice system.
	Following the remarks that have been made by other hon. Members on the first issue, I have two points to make. First, within the parameters of my experience as a practising criminal barrister, I can think of very few of my clients who would be caught by the scope of the Bill and who would have to pay any contribution to their own legal costs because their incomes would come below—in many cases, well below—the limit that the Government propose. I therefore wonder whether a sizeable percentage of those who were my clients would save us any money at all if they were invited to contribute a proportion of their own costs.
	The other issue, which goes to the heart of the matter, and to which other hon. Members have drawn attention, is that the Government do not address in the Bill the very high-cost criminal cases that form a significant part of an unacceptably ever-growing criminal legal aid budget. Until something is done about those cases, the budget will not be brought under control. In fact, I suggest that the situation is worse than that: the danger is that those who practise at the junior end of the criminal Bar get the blame and must carry the burden of those who cause the real problem at the top end of the criminal Bar. That problem is not addressed by the Bill, which, if anything, perpetuates the myth that lawyers and, indeed, their clients in the criminal justice system are mainly responsible for the overspend. In my view, they are not.
	Whether the criminal justice system operates at too high a cost is a genuine concern—it very clearly does—but the reason why it does so is not mainly, substantially and certainly not entirely due to the fact that criminal legal aid is paid in too high amounts to lawyers and their clients. Many other things in the criminal justice system need to be addressed, such as why cases do not come to court as quickly as they should and why there are innumerable adjournments. That has to do with a range of things—the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to a few of them—including failure to disclose evidence in time and problems relating to witnesses and defendants who fail to attend courts. There are even problems, I am sorry to say, relating to defendants not being produced on time from the prisons where they are on remand. That causes delay, and delay causes cost. If the Government chose to do an analysis of costs, I would not be surprised if they discovered that a good portion of the overspend that they correctly describe in the criminal justice legal aid system results from that sort of problem.
	The other difficulty that I have with the Bill is the fact that in the course of attempting to save money, the Government may do damage to the pursuit of criminal justice. It is inevitable that some people who do not receive criminal legal aid because their means are too excessive will choose to represent themselves. The Government have accepted that that will happen in a small number of cases, but I venture to suggest that it might happen in a substantial number of cases. In my experience as a lawyer, when that happens a case inevitably takes longer, and when a case takes longer, it costs more. When the Government calculate the amount that they hope to save through the Bill, they must take account of the lack of saving—if I may put it that way—that will result if more people choose to represent themselves.
	The problem that arises when people represent themselves is not only monetary. It is of course right that such people, as non-trained lawyers, might not be able to get to the heart of the matter as quickly as a legal representative could. Cross-examination also goes on longer. However, in a substantial number of cases, it is profoundly undesirable that those who represent themselves should be permitted to cross-examine witnesses. One can think of several examples of such cases, including neighbour disputes and, worse yet, cases involving a child as a victim or a witness. If prosecutions are conducted in such a way that defendants represent themselves and thus cross-examine witnesses, the process not only takes longer, but detracts from the nature of justice and affects the tone of the case.
	Although I do not object to the substance of the Bill, it fails to address the concerns that I have cited. I hope that the Minister will carefully examine not only what the Bill covers, but what it does not cover. As the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) said, when we deal with criminal defendants, we are often dealing with vulnerable individuals in their most vulnerable moments. It is important that they receive the assistance that they need so that they are represented properly. If they become inclined to defend and represent themselves, as I suspect that they will in some cases, it will not enhance the nature of British justice—quite the reverse. I hope that the Minister will take my points on board and bear them in mind when she thinks about other matters that the Government might wish to address when considering the criminal justice system as a whole.

David Burrowes: I am grateful for the opportunity to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright). I wish to follow on from his experiences at the Bar with my experience—I declare an interest—as a practising criminal solicitor-advocate.
	The titles of Government Bills have tended to be more descriptive in recent times. For example, we recently considered the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. Perhaps a more descriptive title of this Bill would be the "Return of means-testing following our mistake in abolishing it Bill". The Government must have the humility to acknowledge that the will to abolish means-testing was theirs. They have realised that they made a mistake, so they are trying to reintroduce it.
	I was a practising solicitor at the time at which we had the means-testing application forms. We all realised the administrative burdens and the problems and delays that the system caused. However, the problem was not means-testing per se, but the way in which it was administered. I remember the delays vividly. When clients applied for legal aid—as it was called before the representation orders came into being—they were not necessarily the most reliable of sorts. They were required to provide documentary evidence, but they were often self-employed. It took a great deal of time for their statements of accounts to come before the courts, or to get the wage slips for 13 weeks that were needed. There were weekly adjournments, and we went through the process of trying to get blood out of a stone to get the next wage slip to get up to the magic mark of 13 so that we could eventually reach a position at which legal aid could be considered. We certainly knew that the system needed to be changed to take account of those delays and problems.
	Another problem arose due to contribution orders. Clients were often required to make a contribution of a matter of pounds a week, but failed to do so over several weeks. Just before the trial—indeed, in some cases, it was on the day of the trial itself—an order would be issued to revoke their legal aid order because they had not paid their contribution. The trial process ended, and we went back to square one. That must change, and I urge the Government to be cautious about the implementation of the new contribution orders so that we do not return to the bad old days when contribution orders were a spanner in the works for the trial process and the criminal justice system. There is certainly support for a much more simplified, straightforward form of means-testing. It should be less bureaucratic and burdensome, so I welcome the proposals in the Bill.
	I am concerned about the rationale of the proposal to transfer responsibilities for granting representation orders from the courts to the Legal Services Commission. I am not aware of any justification for that proposal, and while I welcome the devolution of powers in the Bill to court staff—notionally, there will not be any changes in administration—the fundamental principle that the courts are the proper place for the judicial function of considering the merits of legal aid should be retained. The hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) referred to complaints about inconsistency after the means-testing scheme was abolished, and spoke about a flood of applications. She sought to criticise the courts for their inconsistency in granting certificates, and suggested that their decisions were wrong. I have not seen any research or statistics to justify such an assertion. From a practitioner's point of view, as soon as the means test was abolished it opened the way for problems for people charged, for example, with driving offences, who could not produce their payslips or a statement of accounts, and thus could not receive a legal aid certificate. Those people now fall within the range for the granting of legal aid, which, in the past, was often granted to people who had the means to pay for representation. The number of certificates increased, but that had little to do with a more liberal approach by the courts towards the granting of certificates. In my years of practice, I did not encounter any inconsistency in the granting of certificates by the courts, so that argument does not provide a proper rationale for seeking to transfer the primary responsibility for granting legal aid from the courts to the Legal Services Commission.
	Recently, however, concerns were expressed when the commission became much more involved in the budgets of individual courts. Court staff were anxious about the targets they had to meet, and the decisions that were made were arbitrary, and not in the interests of justice. Inconsistencies, unfairness and injustice arise when the commission is involved in decision making, so it is worrying that the Bill should confer powers on it. I accept that those powers will be devolved to court staff, but the Bill refers to monitoring by the commission, apparently to deal with the problem of inconsistency. Courts should have a proper residual power to grant legal aid. There is no such provision in the Bill, but it was mentioned in the other place, where Members were anxious about human rights compliance and the need for proper safeguards. In Committee, the Government should accept that the appeal process for legal aid should comply with human rights provisions. Moreover, they should go a step further and retain the principle of residual power for courts to grant legal aid.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) spoke about the prospect of defendants charged with either-way offences electing to plead in such a manner that means they will not be encumbered by contribution orders. I have represented clients who have been primarily concerned with the financial consequences of legal aid, and they have thus elected to plead in a certain way. At present, they must submit a statement of means, so they run the risk of contributing to defence costs. The reverse could well be true if we stagger, as we seek to do, the implementation of means-testing by magistrates courts and Crown courts. In either-way cases, many defendants will base their decision about whether to be tried in a magistrates court or in a Crown court on the issue of which court is less expensive for them. Plainly, there needs to be some reconciliation between the two procedures. We need to avoid the eventuality that I described, which could well increase the costs.
	Finally, I wish to talk up the role of the criminal solicitor.

Oliver Heald: Hear, hear.

David Burrowes: Thank you. I am obliged for that support.
	It is easy, as has been mentioned in the debate, to stereotype legal aid debates and talk loosely about fat-cat lawyers and so on. Solicitors generally provide a good service, offering high quality advice at unsocial hours. If the solicitor is lucky, he sees his client in an interview room. If he is unlucky, the meeting takes place in a smelly cell. Clients are often the most vulnerable in our community and are often dangerous. Their liberty is at stake.
	Solicitors up and down the land fulfil that role. They are under great pressure, not least because of the Government's proposals and the pigeon-hole approach to legal aid that the Government have taken. The Bill is a symptom of that approach to the criminal legal aid service. We all recognise that there has been an increase in criminal legal aid. The situation in the lower courts is largely under control, as the Legal Services Commission has recognised. The Department has predicted a decrease in that budget. It is estimated that the Bill will make savings of £35 million.
	Taking all those factors together—a budget under control, solicitors properly administering the contracting process, and case management procedures in courts having their effect—we should get off the back of solicitors, who seek to provide a good service throughout the country.
	We still face the prospect, which is no doubt under review, of competitive tendering, which could go to the heart of local services. It could drive out local firms, and black and minority ethnic firms in London could be disproportionately affected by such proposals. It is high time the Government took price competitive tendering off the agenda and removed solicitors and the lower courts from their gaze. No doubt high cost cases are a proper target. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) mentioned that delays are endemic within the system—delays caused, for example, by a prison van routinely failing to turn up. No doubt the courts could examine the 1 per cent. of cases that make up 25 per cent. of the criminal legal aid budget. There is certainly no basis for focusing on solicitors, who are trying to do a good job and are keeping proper control of the budget.
	Although I welcome most of the Bill, I ask the Government to examine in detail the forgoing of the important principle of the interests of justice being properly determined by the courts, to look in the round at the cost of criminal legal aid budgets, and to ensure that they provide a good service to solicitors and defendants alike.

David Davies: I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in the debate. I join my hon. Friends in giving a cautious welcome to the Bill, with certain caveats. I am not a lawyer, but one does not need one when reading through the Bill to realise that it represents a giant U-turn on the Act that the Government passed in 1999.
	The Minister said the old system was decrepit and in need of change, in which case one must ask why she, or rather her colleagues, did not change the system. What they did was tear it up and start again. The Government insisted that means-testing would have to be abolished. They were warned at the time that abolition would mean an exponential growth in claims and legal aid bills, but they dismissed that on the basis that the extra claims would be more than offset by the increase in efficiency as a result of dispensing with the service for the calculation of contributions.
	Legal aid spending has increased by 34 per cent. since 1997. The Government's figures suggest that the increase in costs is because people who would previously have paid for legal aid are taking advantage of the fact that they can now get it—the example involving a professional footballer who earns £40,000 a week is simply the tip of the iceberg. [Interruption.] I would be happy to take an intervention by the hon. Member for Workington (Tony Cunningham).
	The Government introduced the 1999 Act in the face of warnings, and they made an error that cost millions of pounds and that possibly denied people access to justice. However, we must not be too hard on them, because any creditable system of justice should give a little credit to an offender who admits to having made an error and who wants to put that error right. Although we have not heard an apology from the Minister yet—perhaps we will get one shortly—the Bill is a way to make amends and reverse the errors introduced by the Labour party, and it will therefore receive cross-party support.

Vera Baird: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Hansard, but there was not a squeak from any Conservative Member when that change was made.

David Davies: I have not read the Hansard, but I have read a number of reports, which make it clear that warnings were given to Ministers that the cost of legal aid would increase. It is for Ministers, not the Opposition, to take such decisions, and today they have admitted that they took the wrong decision. All I want is for them to accept that they took the wrong decision.
	The Government have said that money will be saved, and they have discussed the figure of £35 million. I shall echo the hon. and learned Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) and ask about the form in which we will see those savings. Will legal aid bills reduce by £35 million, or will the money simply be spent in different ways, in which case the legal aid bill may continue to rise?
	To pick up on a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Adam Afriyie), how will the Government police the mechanism for ensuring that people do not submit incorrect information when they claim legal aid? My hon. Friend has discussed the possibility of hiding funds in offshore costs, and it would also be easy for people to take out their savings, which is the asset that will be examined, to pay off the capital on their house or to buy a new car. What steps, if any, will be taken to police the mechanism and ensure that people provide accurate information? The Minister keeps saying that the Government will come up with an efficient system, but one cannot help but wonder whether the Government's definition of efficiency simply entails accepting on trust applications made by people who are already in the courts having been charged with other offences.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) rightly drew attention to the point that one reason why legal aid bills are increasing is that the Government keep creating ever more offences. He discussed the example of a young lady who was arrested simply for reading out the names of British soldiers killed in Iraq. I do not suppose that that young lady is a paid-up member of her local Conservative association, but I fully support her right to speak out. Apart from the increase in legal aid bills, I find it extraordinary that such cases are being brought. The Government are going to try to be tough on legal aid spending, but they are not going to be tough on the causes of legal aid spending.
	The Government could dramatically reduce costs in one or two other areas. Returning to asylum and immigration cases, more than £200 million was spent on legal aid for such cases in the financial year 2003–04. All hon. Members believe that genuine asylum seekers should be given all possible help in order to stay in this country. As the Government's figures show, however, the vast majority of those who claim asylum are making false claims and are not genuine asylum seekers. It is unacceptable that £200 million is being spent in this way, thereby funding legal advice to people who are making bogus claims. I know that all Members, many of whom are lawyers, are honourable, in and out of the House. However, I am concerned about the immigration and asylum lawyers who are, frankly, filling their boots with taxpayers' cash by launching one appeal after another in cases that are demonstrably hopeless. I suggest that the Minister should consider how legal aid for asylum and immigration is funded and even explore the possibility of withdrawing legal aid from people whose claims will clearly be false because they come from countries where there should be no danger to their lives.
	The Government should examine the way in which sentences are imposed. One of the reasons legal aid bills are so high is that we have a system whereby offenders are able to keep reappearing on various offences because they have never been sentenced properly in the first place. If people were given adequate prison sentences, they, first, would not be free to go around breaking the law and causing more misery to members of the public, and, secondly, would not be causing a rise in legal aid spending by reappearing in court and making the British taxpayer responsible for their defence.
	It is utterly perverse that those who are in prison are able to claim legal aid in order to get out on early release. There was much self-congratulation in the establishment a few weeks ago when the murderers of Anthony Walker were given the supposedly draconian sentence of two life sentences—a double life tariff. But if one reads the small print, it is clear that those two murderers will be out walking the streets within 15 to 20 years. By the time one of them is aged 35, he will be able to go before an early release board with legal aid in order to get himself out of prison again. That is outrageous. If such people were given the sentences that they deserved, they would never walk the streets again, and they would certainly not get legal aid in order to qualify them to do so.
	The Minister has a long way to go before she solves the problem of rising legal aid. She said that she is going to come up with a new system that will be simpler, more cost-effective and more efficient. Those phrases were all used a few years ago when the Access to Justice Act 1999 was introduced. I was not here in 1999—if I had been, I would be suffering from a case of déjà vu—but I would not be at all surprised if in five years' time we were not back here again having found that legal aid costs have once again soared and that the whole system is falling apart, with the difference that I fully expect that by that time those of sitting us on the Opposition side will be sitting on the Government side, and we will have a Home Secretary who will be able to put in place a proper system that will last us for many years to come.

Nick Ainger: I thank Members on both sides of the House for participating in a useful and constructive debate on this small but extremely significant Bill. I do not believe that there is a great deal of disagreement in the House about the key principle that lies at the heart of the Bill—that those who can afford to pay for the cost of their own defence should in normal circumstances be invited to do so. I think that we are on common ground in seeking to ensure that the legal aid budget is managed on a sustainable basis.
	Several Conservative Members, particularly the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly), suggested that the reintroduction of a means test could threaten access to justice. However, it is not about denying the right to representation but about determining whether it is right and proper that the state should meet the cost of that representation in all cases.

Jonathan Djanogly: I did not intend to intervene on the Under-Secretary, but I should be grateful if he would explain precisely when I said that the measure would deny access to justice.

Nick Ainger: That is my recollection, and I apologise if I am incorrect. A theme that ran through the debate was the concern that individuals could be denied access to justice in some cases, but we must accept that means-testing has been an integral part of the welfare state in ensuring that those who can pay do so. Successive Governments have tried to ensure that valuable budgetary resources can be accurately and fairly allocated to those who most need them, and that argument applies to the legal aid budget. Far from restricting access to justice, means-testing will actively help to promote access for all.
	Several hon. Members asked questions about or doubted whether the savings to which the supporting documentation refers would occur. The calculation of a £35 million saving comes from detailed work, which shows published thresholds of £19,000 for a couple without children up to £34,000. Of the approximately 30 per cent. of people who currently receive legal aid, two thirds will be eligible and a third will not be eligible. It is then a relatively easy calculation to establish that, on current budgets, that means a saving of £35 million. The figure relates to thresholds in the supporting documentation. We accept that, as we progress through Committee and when orders are laid, the thresholds could be adjusted. That was one of the points that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) made.
	Several hon. Members accused the Government of a massive U-turn in the Bill, given that the Access to Justice Act 1999 abolished the means test. However, it is worth referring to the Second Reading debate on that measure. The Opposition tabled a reasoned amendment to Second Reading that did not mention means-testing in its lengthy objection or in the grounds that it set out for voting against the Bill. I have read all the speeches by Opposition Members and not one mentioned the abolition of the means test. My research so far suggests that, even in Committee, Conservative Members did not object to it.

David Davies: The Under-Secretary knows that I was not here in 1999 because I was serving in the Welsh Assembly. I can assume only that so much else was wrong with the Bill that Conservative Members had other things on their minds.

Nick Ainger: Nice try. However, it is clear from the debates in 1999 that the issue was not perceived as controversial. The abolition was accepted for the reasons that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs gave. There were clearly serious problems, which the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) identified, in that the processes involved in the means test added significant delays to the justice system. A judgment was made at the time that abolishing it was a way of saving money, but more important, of speeding up access to justice. Hon. Members should be careful and, instead of crowing, accept that, at the time, the measure was perceived as a step in the right direction. However, our experience in the past four years or so and the various individual cases that have clearly abused the system show that something has to be done.
	The hon. Member for Huntingdon mentioned certain other factors that drive the rising costs of legal aid. The reasons for the growth in expenditure are complex, and require an integrated approach if they are to be tackled successfully. "A Fairer Deal for Legal Aid", which was launched in July 2005, sets out a strategic vision for how this can be achieved. While the reintroduction of means-testing has a key role to play in that regard, it is by no means the sole focus of the strategy. For example, major steps are being taken to address the budgetary concerns posed by very high-cost criminal cases. However, it is important to recognise that the savings that will flow from the Bill are significant, with at least £35 million of savings resulting from the implementation of means tests in magistrates courts alone. For that reason, it is right and proper that we continue to give proportionate emphasis to means-testing as a major element in the strategy.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that the number of criminal practitioners—solicitors in particular—in his area was causing concern, and that sometimes only one solicitor would be available. We are aware of problems in certain rural areas, which are often less well provided for than urban areas. However, the Legal Services Commission is providing training grants to tackle that problem. In my experience, the number of students seeking to enter law school is continuing to rise considerably, and we need to ensure that a package is available to encourage those students to go into criminal representation.

David Heath: The Minister is absolutely right; there is no shortage of keen and eager students going into law schools with high altruistic principles about going into legal aid criminal practice. The problem is finding places for them in firms such as those in my area, where training places are simply not available.

Nick Ainger: I accept that point. We have to look at the issue holistically, and perhaps it can be discussed further in Committee.
	The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome raised the issue of the amendment that was passed in the House of Lords, and expressed his disappointment that we intend to overturn it. I should reiterate the Government's position on this policy. On the interests of justice case, the Government firmly believe that there should be an appeal to the court. However, when an applicant disputes the outcome of the means test, the Government consider that an administrative review mechanism is entirely appropriate. I think that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) made the point that it would not be justifiable to take to court a dispute over a calculation.
	To provide for a full appeal process in respect of the means test would amount to a misuse of court resources, as the test is essentially administrative in nature and does not merit judicial intervention. I would add that that view is supported by members of the senior judiciary, whom we have consulted on this issue. At the end of the day, if an individual remains dissatisfied after the review has been carried out by the authorities, the individual could seek judicial review of the decision. It is for those reasons that the Government intend to table amendments in Committee to restore that position.

David Heath: The Minister must know that judicial review is not a substitute for an appeal process, because it would only consider the way in which the decision was taken. It could not consider the facts ab initio as to whether the eligibility should have been granted.

Nick Ainger: The issue, however, is purely financial— [Interruption.] If we are talking about eligibility, the issue is whether or not the individual qualifies for legal aid. That involves considering the individual's financial situation, and I reiterate that that is not a justification for the court—

Adam Afriyie: I disagree entirely with what the Minister has just said. This is definitely an access to justice issue, because how can one have justice if one does not have legal aid and one cannot afford to pay for legal representation?

Nick Ainger: First, there can be an appeal to the court on the interests of justice issue if aid is refused on those grounds. Eligibility, in purely financial terms, concerns whether or not the individual has sufficient resources to qualify for legal aid. That is not an access issue. With some of the thresholds that have been indicated, and the availability of resources test, this is a perfectly reasonable move forward. We need to keep the system relatively simple but fair, so that we do not return to the old system, which the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate described so well, and the problems that occurred under it.

Jeremy Wright: Surely the Minister cannot have it both ways. If, as he says, the eligibility criterion is a straightforward mathematical exercise, an appeal on that basis cannot waste much court time, can it?

Nick Ainger: Why should the matter be taken to court when there is a review system? If the argument is about what someone earns, or what their outgoings are, the position should be relatively clear. I fail to see why this sort of issue should end up in court.

David Heath: rose—

Nick Ainger: I shall give way for the final time on this point to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome.

David Heath: The Minister is being very generous, and we must not rehearse now the debate that we will inevitably have in Committee. I just wanted to understand the basic issue, which is not the simple addition of income in order to maintain eligibility. The most likely cause for an appeal would be in the case of estrangement or where there was a new partner who was not a spouse, on the question of whether their joint income should be taken into account for these purposes. The Minister is saying that it is all right for that to be dealt with administratively, whereas I am saying that, ultimately, a court might have to decide on the appropriateness or otherwise.

Nick Ainger: I always try to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman, and I do not know whether he has read the supplement, which goes into considerable detail about the points to which he refers—[Interruption.] All that I can say to him is that if there is such a complex issue, it is perfectly reasonable for it to be considered by judicial review. The concern, however, is that we will again tie up our courts with people appealing on their financial eligibility for legal aid. It is recognised by senior members of the judiciary that that is not a good use of court time.
	This Bill seeks to tackle a widely recognised and much criticised flaw in the legal aid system—that, on too many occasions, those clearly able to afford the cost of their own representation and perhaps convicted of some of the most repellent and socially corrosive crimes are receiving the benefit of taxpayers' money through the legal aid system. Cases such as that of Kenneth Noye and, more recently, El-Hadji Diouf, are mercifully rare but do no credit to an otherwise socially vital, well-conceived and accepted system.
	This is a common-sense measure that fits well with much of this Government's successful modernisation of the criminal justice system. It is based on the incontrovertible, broadly accepted principle that those who can afford to pay for the cost of their own defence should do so. It also makes significant progress towards ensuring that the modern legal aid system is sustainable and available for the protection of both current and future generations. It is, in short, a return to the founding principles of legal aid, and I am happy to commend the Bill to the House.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE SERVICE BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 83A(6) (Programme motions),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Criminal Defence Service Bill [Lords]:
	Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
	Proceedings in Standing Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 12th January 2006.
	3. The Standing Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on consideration and Third Reading.
	Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Tony Cunningham.]
	Question agreed to.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE SERVICE BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)(Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Defence Service Bill [Lords] it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of money so provided under any other enactment.—[Tony Cunningham.]
	Question agreed to.

CRIMINAL DEFENCE SERVICE BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with bills),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Criminal Defence Service Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise provision about contribution orders in relation to rights to representation.—[Tony Cunningham.]
	Question agreed to.

CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.
	Question, That the Bill be now read a Second time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Consolidated Fund Bills), and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.
	Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

CLIMATE CHANGE AND SUSTAINABLE ENERGY BILL [MONEY]

Queen's recommendation having been signified—
	Resolved,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of the money provided by Parliament of—
	(a) any expenditure incurred by a Minister of the Crown by virtue of the Act, and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable out of the money so provided under any other enactment.—[Malcolm Wicks.]

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on motions 8 to 12.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Animals

That the draft Animal Health Act 1981 (Amendment) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 9th November, be approved.

London Government

That the draft Transport for London (Best Value) (Contracting Out of Investment and Highway Functions) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 16th November, be approved.

Electronic Communications

That the draft Communications Act 2003 (Maximum Penalty and Disclosure of Information) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.

Criminal Law

That the draft Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 (Amendment) Order 2005, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.

Environmental Protection

That the draft Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 2005, which were laid before this House on 24th November, be approved.—[Tony Cunningham.]
	Question agreed to.

EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I propose to put together the Questions on motions 13 and 14.
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Tackling Organised Crime

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 9997/05 and Addendum 1, Commission Communication: Developing a Strategic Concept on Tackling Organised Crime; supports the Government's position in welcoming the Commission's strategic approach to tackling organised crime; and notes that many elements of the strategy are, or will be, the subject of detailed negotiation.

Economic Migration

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 5436/05, Green Paper on a European Union Approach to managing economic migration; and supports the Government's position in response to it to date.—[Tony Cunningham.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Tees Port

Vera Baird: This is the petition of the Redcar business association and the Redcar road west action group, the latter being a grass-roots group of people in the former steel town of South Bank in my constituency. Petitions on this subject have been signed by 810 people. They support a proposal by PD Teesport to develop a deep-sea container terminal to expand Tees Port and generate employment.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to look favourably on the application—
	the proposed application—
	by Tees Port to expand within the context of a national ports strategy that takes into account environmental costs, congestion—
	southern congestion—
	and the needs of the North East.
	To lie upon the Table.

BIRTLEY COMMUNITY PARTNERSHIP

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Tony Cunningham.]

David Anderson: Thank you for calling me, Mr. Speaker. I also thank the Minister for being present to reply to the debate.
	I rise to speak about the town in which I live—a town where I have lived for only just over a year, but a town that has already had a major impact on my life. Birtley is not unique, except perhaps to those of us who live there. We think it is special, but I imagine that anyone else here would think the same of where they live. At its roots, it is a town built on the basis of hard work, a town that has seen hard times, and a town that deserves a break. My aim tonight is to give some impetus for the achievement of such a break.
	I shall describe the history of Birtley, the solidarity and strength of a dedicated group of townsfolk and, crucially, a planning process that, if it is allowed to succeed, could be a blueprint for real community development based on partnership, consensus and involvement—not just for Birtley and not just for the whole country, but for those beyond our shores. I also want to describe the way in which I believe the Minister, his Department and local authorities can help to bring all the hard work to fruition.
	Birtley is a town of some 10,000 people. It lies between Chester-le-Street and Gateshead, on what was the old Great North road—the old A1. It is an old town: indeed, in 1996 it celebrated the 300th anniversary of the founding of its Benedictine mission. The mission was founded only nine years after the execution of the Blessed George Douglas, a catholic priest who was hung, drawn and quartered on 9 September 1687 for the crime of "persuading to popery". It is an old town, and today it still has brave inhabitants.
	Over the next 200 years the area experienced massive immigration, particularly from Ireland—so much so that by 1871 more than a quarter of the population were of Irish birth or descent. They came to Birtley because at the time it was a Klondike: coal, iron, chemicals, shipbuilding and engineering all beckoned to people who were struggling to survive following five horrific years of famine. They built a future for themselves and laid the foundation for people such as me to follow on.
	Brickworks were popping up all over the place from the early 1850s onwards. They thrived up to the 1970s. In the years before the second world war, almost 300,000 bricks a week were produced in just two yards.
	The area, like all of County Durham, was home to a number of collieries. There was even a tinplate works that was owned by the local Co-op. It produced everything from tin water bottles for miners to tea caddies for the Queen's coronation. The tin was even used during the second world war to make cases for smoke bombs.
	I was amazed to discover, when speaking to people from the town, that 70 years before Nissan came to Sunderland, we built cars in Birtley. If anyone knows how I can lay my hands on a 1921, 14-horsepower Angus Sanderson, please get in touch as soon as possible.
	Throughout the last century, we were one of the biggest manufacturers of munitions for all our armed services and for other countries, a role that is continued today by British Aerospace. It is noteworthy that, at its peak, over 7,000 people worked there, but today the number is nearer to 400. It is a very skilled work force dealing with high-quality equipment at a state-of-the-art facility.
	Many of those workers in the early part of the last century were from Belgium, refugees escaping the trauma of the first world war. They settled in Birtley in an area that became known as Elizabethville in honour of the then Queen of Belgium. We were a town of hard-working people with lots of opportunities, but we were no strangers to struggle. Reading The Chester Chronicle—that is Chester-le-Street—from 11 March 1921, I was struck by the extract:
	"a grand concert was held in aid of the Relief Fund, for the unemployed. The effort was a financial success and resulted in an amount of 12 pounds seven shillings being handed over to alleviate distress in the village."
	Real hardship was the order of the day for many. During the 1926 miners' strike, people came together and shared what little they had, sticking together, making soup, or broth as we call it in the north. Sadly, as happened 60 years later, starvation and desperation forced the men back to work. The means test became a way of life for far too many and, all these years later, many old people recall all too vividly the harsh reality of that pernicious form of welfare. The sooner we have no more of it, the better say I.
	The town has prospered since those dark years, thankfully. Today, we see many positive signs of improvements that our forebears could only dream of. We have new houses that are sold before they are built. We have successful schools and, beneath it all, a great community spirit. Despite the setbacks of the 1980s and 1990s, we are moving forward.
	One of the best pieces of news I heard in the past year was that the jobcentre was closing because hardly any clients were using it. I pray for the day when we can celebrate the closure of the last jobcentre. Even better than that, one of the reasons that the jobcentre closed was that its offices were to be expanded into by a local company, Komatsu, which builds earth-moving equipment in Birtley and is breaking records week in, week out. However, we still want to do better. We are committed to seeing real regeneration of the town centre to complement the town's spirit and the hard work that is going on across the town.
	The body that has risen to take up that challenge is the Birtley community partnership, a dedicated group of people encompassing local councillors, residents associations, the police, local businesses, youth clubs, church groups, sports clubs and school governors. Representatives of all the community have come together, inspired by the directive laid out by the Deputy Prime Minister in 2000, which said:
	"people want to have a say in what happens in their community and to shape their own future."
	We are taking part in that process in Birtley. Thankfully, we have had support from the Gateshead voluntary sector and Gateshead council. They have grown with the partnership, the collective voice of Birtley's people. Its remit is to seek improvements to the local environment, to communicate effectively on a two-way basis with and for local people, and to promote the regeneration of the town centre.
	Already there have been small but important improvements, such as the introduction in the main street of flower baskets and flower tubs, a litter reduction scheme led and taken over by local schools, the siting of a Christmas tree in the centre of the town, which happened for years and has come back through the work of those people, and the development of an open-air carol service. Those are really small steps, but they make really tangible improvements to people's lives. They are things that put a smile on the faces of the people of Birtley.
	The biggest challenge is still to come—the regeneration of the town centre. Using the avenue of the best value review carried out by Gateshead council—it was the first time that a town in this country was put under a best value review—the partnership engaged with officers from the council to put its plans forward. As part of that process, the council conducted surveys and sought the views of every person in Birtley.
	To provide real ownership of the process, the council introduced Dr. Tony Gibson, OBE, to the partnership. Coincidentally, he lives in the Derwent valley, another great part of my constituency. Dr. Gibson was originally invited by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to develop the concept of Planning for Real. It involved local people in changing their environment according to their wishes and their needs, rather than at the whim of faceless bureaucrats.
	Building on 30 years of work from across the world—from Kenya to the Caribbean and most places in between—Dr. Gibson relies on hands-on techniques and readily available materials to give people the real sense of ownership that they need. People already have pride in their home town: they just need the prompt and the power to move forward from hope to reality. Dr. Gibson makes it easy and welcoming for people to engage, using simple direct instructions and guidance, such as "You tell me how you would like to see your town". He encourages people to turn talk into action. He asks people to identify their problems, but not to look to others to resolve them. Rather, people are encouraged to use their own knowledge and common sense to provide the answers. It is built up by involving as wide a cross-section of the community as possible.
	By all means use expert advice, but do not let the experts own it. Build people's self-confidences and get those who believe that "It's about time, too," to do more than talk. Get them to lead by example and pull others into the project. Then make that project come alive. Develop models and maps: they do not have to be state of the art, but they do need to be recognisable to local people. Set up a skills database. Who are the local bricklayers, dressmakers, IT experts or mechanics? Ask them to play their part in helping to improve their town. From all of that activity, we can then pull together a priority list that may not move the earth, but may well make a real difference for real people on a day-to-day basis. Putting a seat in the middle of the main shopping street may not mean much to most people, but if it allows old friends to sit together in their town and talk with pride of their shared past and their hopes for the future, surely that is a job well done.
	People came together in Birtley and drew scale maps of the town, saying to other people that it was a foundation that they were working for. They then said: "Put on the map what you see as the problem areas, and put next to it what you see as the solutions". That focuses people's minds and brings a real sense of ownership and control, which is done by involving people themselves. Local people are encouraged to speak out and put their point of view for the town in their own way. There is no delineation between us and them. Whether experts or onlookers, everyone is treated as an equal whose view is as worthy as the next person's.
	Packs were developed for schools in Birtley and the children at Barley Mow and Ravensworth schools were busily engaged in producing models to put on to maps. They produced a video that showed what they thought needed doing to improve their town. That is nothing new. As I said earlier, this is being done across the world by Dr. Gibson and others—and it works.
	Listen to some of the comments from other towns. In Sheffield, it was said:
	"This is a real example of residents changing the council's mind."
	In Kingston, Jamaica, it was said:
	"The community support has been overwhelming."
	In Statterham, South Africa:
	"It's what we've been waiting for all these years. The less people are talking, the more they are doing".
	In Kenya:
	"The youths themselves are thinking that they can really do something."
	In Bosnia:
	"It was a new and inspiring experience for all of us, we will work in the same manner in the future for sure."
	Commenting on the first Planning for Real project, the BBC said:
	"It is a scheme of almost child like brilliance which puts reality into the lazy jargon of community participation."
	It works—and we in the House all know the reality of the failure when communities do not gel and do not work together. It is great—it is a shame that no Conservative Members are present—that, at long last, the Tory leadership has come to believe that there really is such a thing as society. But unless society produces communities that work—that control their own destiny and have pride in, and belief in, themselves—it is pointless having a society. Communities must work together.
	Tony Gibson and active participants such as the Birtley partnership have put into reality the words of the Minister of Communities and Local Government, my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband), who said that we need to overcome
	"a sense of powerlessness in local communities"
	by
	"devolving power down to street level."
	They are walking the walk in Birtley and replacing apathy with action. They are using local resources and skills, and involving their friends, neighbours, children and families. They are bringing people together, identifying and tackling problems and developing solutions. They are identifying the who, what, where, when and how. They are using experts but keeping them on tap, rather than letting them be on top; they are the doers, not the talkers. They have done the groundwork and involved the community across the generations. They have ignored partisanship and rivalries. They are encouraging people to think, rather than to moan; to see, rather than to talk; to act, rather than to debate.
	I am glad to report that the Birtley project has just completed a very full programme of activities throughout the town. The maps, models and toolkit have been taken into schools, churches, pubs and clubs—anywhere where people come together—and the people want more. They care about the town and they want to build a future for their community.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields has agreed to visit Birtley in January and to see for himself what we do and where we are going. Gateshead council's best value review is almost in place and plans have been made up to 2010. It is hoped that soon the council will hand over to the partnership the old library, which will be developed into a drop-in centre owned by the town of Birtley and co-ordinated by the partnership. People became engaged in this process because they did not want to see a drift away from their town; they wanted to prevent further decline. They want a main street that acts as living proof of the vibrant community that Birtley has always been.
	I said at the beginning of my speech that we are neither unique nor special—at least, not more so than any other town or community that has a pride in its history and a desire to build a better future. If our experience can help others, we will be happy to engage with them. This idea has worked around the world; it can work in Birtley and in other areas.
	In closing, I ask the Minister to do all in his power to ensure that all this work—this effort and genuine commitment—is not in vain. Any help would be greatly welcomed and would be a testimony to our Government's real commitment to helping real people on the ground. We can put clothes on the words of the Deputy Prime Minister by not just letting people have "a say" in their future, but by providing the resources to allow them to shape their own future. We are talking about real empowerment and sometimes, for those of us in control, that can be challenging, but we must be up for it. The people of Birtley are, as Tony Gibson said in his book, like people trying to balance
	"on a bike that stands still."
	It is hard and, as he says,
	"watch any roller blader weave and glide, it's the momentum that keeps us up and going . . . The only alternative to being taken over by events is to take them over, and that is not easy."
	He is right, but we in Birtley are up for that challenge. I ask the Minister to keep our momentum going, to give us his support and to help us to keep moving forward together.

Jim Fitzpatrick: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr. Anderson) for initiating this Adjournment debate and I congratulate him on securing it. I note that he advised the House that the Minister of Communities and Local Government will visit Birtley in January. I am sure that he will study the text of this debate as part of his preparation for his visit.
	I understand that the Birtley community partnership is an active and enthusiastic group of people who are committed to making a real difference by ensuring that their town centre in the north-east of England is a lively and attractive, yet safe community environment. That is as it should be. It is essential for the vitality, welfare and safety of every community that people of all ages and from all walks of life engage constructively and effectively with each other and with other stakeholders in their area—such as the local council, businesses and the voluntary sector—to enrich the local economy, to provide jobs, to provide a safe and healthy local environment, and to encourage social cohesion, a strong local culture and pride in the community, much as my hon. Friend described.
	Those are just some of the elements of a sustainable community that can help to underpin the action programme of the sustainable communities plan that the Government are working towards implementing. I am delighted to hear of such a fine example of community partnership in my hon. Friend's constituency. I have no doubt that other hon. Members will rush to tell me of equally exciting examples in their own constituencies and that they will have their own versions of people such as the Dr. Gibson to whom my hon. Friend referred several times.
	The Government believe that local authorities must involve the people in their communities in developing the vision for their area. People should have more say in the way that places are run. They should have the opportunity to help improve local services, including schools, health services and the police, so that those services respond to the community's needs.
	Local communities should be invited to offer ideas about what the vision for their area should be and how that can be achieved. Communities should be given every opportunity to play a full part in the processes of drawing up specific plans and policies, and they should also be consulted on proposals for development and regeneration of their area.
	To deliver sustainable communities, we need an efficient, inclusive planning system. To be inclusive, that system needed more and better community involvement. It is for those reasons that the Government undertook a major review of the system that culminated in the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Regional and local plan making were reformed, with one of the aims being to enhance community involvement. One of the key parts of drawing up the local development framework is a requirement for local authorities to prepare statements of community involvement.
	Primarily, SCIs are statements of the local authority's policy for involving interested parties in preparing and revising local development documents and for consulting on planning applications. They set out the local vision and standards for community involvement and how they link with other initiatives, such as the community strategy. They should also reflect the needs of the whole community, and identify the diversity of local groups that need to be involved.
	To encourage that process, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published a good practice guide on diversity and equality in planning. I am pleased to hear that the Birtley exercise is just such an example of inclusive planning in practice. Community strategies, local development documents and parish plans are all valuable tools in establishing the local vision and putting it into action.
	SCIs need not simply be about planning matters. Forward-looking authorities will be thinking about how such statements might be incorporated into their whole corporate culture when preparing other plans and programmes for the full range of their responsibilities.
	A key feature of our approach is something called front loading, which means that local authorities must involve communities and stakeholders in their thinking at the earliest opportunity when they are considering the issues and the range of realistic options for dealing with them. Another theme of the new planning system is to examine critically the real geography of places, and we call that spatial planning. The example offered by Birtley, where a Planning for Real exercise has been used to inform a vision for the regeneration of the town centre, is what spatial planning is all about.
	The Government recognise that community involvement takes time and resources. We understand that there are real pressures on local authorities, particularly when it comes to achieving targets for dealing with proposals. However, we believe that effective community involvement, although it may require up-front investment, can have real benefits that will enable local authorities to manage better the process for giving effect to their vision for the next 10 years or so.
	There are many ways of involving communities and there is no right way or wrong way. Much will depend on the nature of the issue and the nature of the group or community that needs to be reached—and, as we know, some groups will be harder to reach than others.
	My hon. Friend mentioned Planning for Real and the excellent work that Birtley community partnership has put into its exercise to improve the town centre, along with the crucial support of the local authority, Gateshead council. That is certainly one way to achieve effective engagement and I applaud the partnership's initiative.
	The Royal Town Planning Institute describes Planning for Real as a method that uses simple models as a focus for people to put forward and prioritise ideas on how their area can be improved. I commend it as a highly visible, hands-on community development and empowerment tool, in which people of all abilities and backgrounds find it easy and enjoyable to engage. It seems especially effective for master planning an area or for developing urban design projects.
	Hon. Members may be aware that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has helped to fund a useful community planning website that is run by the RTPI. It provides those interested with lots of helpful articles and guidance. In addition, the ODPM gives financial support to the RTPI's planning aid service. In fact, the Government are providing £4 million over three years so that it can expand its services and be more proactive, especially in communities that are harder to reach. An important part of its brief is to help local communities to engage effectively with the local planning system. I understand that at least some of its regional offices have had a significant role in helping local authorities and communities to carry out Planning for Real exercises.
	The planning aid service exists by using a regional network of more than 700 qualified volunteers and I pay tribute to them for giving up their time to help communities. As my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has said, we are putting people first. We must raise the quality of what and how we build. We must improve the quality and delivery of the services that people need. We can do that best if communities are involved at the earliest practicable stage. Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend and his constituents in the Birtley community partnership on the example that they have set. They have shown us that community involvement can be real and effective. I am sure that they have learned a lot from Planning for Real in Birtley and will be able to build on their experience.
	I am equally confident that, with my hon. Friends' enthusiastic support, the community partnership will go from strength to strength. He paid tribute to the town of Birtley and its people, and I am sure that the House is grateful for his contribution.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Six o'clock.